Science editor-in-chief sounds alarm over falling public trust

Written by David Matthews

Snake oil salesman
Source: Getty
Jeremy Berg is taking on one of the most influential jobs in science just as the scientific endeavour is facing a challenge of historic proportions.

As the new editor-in-chief of Science, a highly selective journal that still has the controversial power to make scientific careers, the biochemist and former University of Pittsburgh senior manager is worried about an apparent rejection of science by some parts of the public – and thinks that academics should look closely at how their own behaviour may have contributed.

“One of the things that drew me to this position…is there’s a crisis in public trust in science,” he tells Times Higher Education after starting in the Science post on 1 July. “I don’t pretend to have answers to that question but it is something that I care deeply about.”

Berg, who started his career in chemistry but then moved on to span a host of other disciplines including biochemistry and personalised medicine, acknowledges that society’s confidence in science does “wax and wane” over time but thinks that, this time, things are different.

In the US, “scientists have been labelled as another special interest group”, he says.

Part of this is down to the polarisation of American politics and the rise of an anti-intellectual spirit, Berg thinks. His fears echo Atul Gawande, an American health writer, who earlier this year told graduating students at the California Institute of Technology that “we are experiencing a significant decline in trust in scientific authorities”.

In his address, Gawande cited a study that showed a significant decline in trust in science among American conservatives. In 1974, conservatives had the most trust in science, but by 2010, they had the least, and substantially less than liberals in particular.

Donald Trump, who has erroneously linked vaccines to autism, blamed China for creating the concept of global warming to undermine US manufacturing and claimed that environmentally friendly light bulbs can cause cancer, can be seen as one manifestation of this long-term collapse in conservative trust in science in the US.

But researchers are not entirely blameless for this rising hostility, thinks Berg. “Scientists are guilty of behaving in some ways of making this stick more than it needs to,” he says.

Too often they have gone beyond explaining the scientific situation and ventured into policy prescriptions, notably in the case of climate change, he thinks. “The policy issues should be informed by science, but they are separate questions,” he says. “Scientists to some degree, intentionally or otherwise, have been mashing the two together,” he adds, and urges scientists to be more “transparent” about “where the firmness of your conclusions end”.

Another area where scientists have overstepped the reach of their evidence is in drug development, where there “has been a tendency maybe to overhype early results”, Berg suggests.

“Scientists…say ‘we have this really important discovery and it will lead to new drugs for treating cancer in the next few years’, when the reality is that they have swum the first lap of a sixteen-lap race,” he warns.

Berg’s interest in the communication of science comes in part from his time leading the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, the basic research arm of the US’ National Institute of Health (NIH), where he was director from 2003 to 2011.

There he found that the NIH’s policies towards researchers, although well thought through, were “pretty close” to being “opaque” and in need of better elucidation, he says.

But some in the scientific community argue that high-profile journals such as Science are partly to blame for the very overhyping of results that Berg decries.

A paper published in 2011 made waves after it found that there was a correlation between journal impact factors (JIFs) – which measure average paper citation rates over the past two years and are highest for prestigious journals such as Science, Nature and Cell – and the rate of retractions. Science had the second highest rate of retractions among the journals studied, below only the New England Journal of Medicine.

This could be because these journals are more highly scrutinised, the authors said. But it could also be because of demands from such journals for “clear and definitive” results, they suggested, which incentivise researchers to cut corners to come up with a neat scientific story.

Berg acknowledges that there is a “delicate balance” to strike between sharing the exciting fruits of research with the public and being sure not to exaggerate findings.

He argues that Science has “by and large” got this balance right, although he admits that “there have been things that garner lots of publicity that turn out to be overblown or just plain wrong”.

Although only six weeks into his job, Berg has already taken aim at JIFs, an oft-criticised way to rank journals and gauge the quality of scientists’ work. In a Science editorial and blog, Berg calculated that because papers have such a big spread of citations within any one journal, it makes little sense to use the JIF to predict how many citations any one article will have.

JIFs have been “abused by the scientific community and the scientific administrative community”, he tells THE, and have taken on “a life of their own”. Some journals specify their impact factors to three decimal places – this level of specious detail should be “like fingernails on a chalkboard” to a scientist, he says.

Berg stops short of saying that Science will no longer release its JIF, as “transparency is good”. But actively publicising an impact factor is “a much harder case to make”, he says.

Science and others have also been under fire for their high rejection rates: the Nobel prizewinning cell biologist Randy Schekman accused prestigious journals of behaving “like fashion designers who create limited-edition handbags or suits” because “they know scarcity stokes demand, so they artificially restrict the number of papers they accept”.

Science Advances, an online only, open access journal launched in 2014, is a way to ease this problem, Berg argues, as it can accommodate articles too long to fit into Science itself.

It is “certainly the goal” for Science Advances to be as prestigious as Science itself, he says. “I don’t see it as the consolation prize if you don’t get in to Science.”

But even if the clout of Science Advances grows, Berg acknowledges that there may always be a “prestige edge” for physical journals – such as Science – where space is inevitably scarce.

[email protected]

Read more at www.timeshighereducation.com

Continue Reading 1 Comment

In new book, scholar peels back layers of deception on global warming

Written by Michael O’Brien

Michael Hart is a former official in Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs and now emeritus professor of international affairs at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, where he has taught courses on the laws and institutions of international trade, Canadian foreign policy, and the politics of climate change. He held the Fulbright-Woodrow Wilson Center Visiting Research Chair in Canada-U.S. Relations and was Scholar-in-Residence in the School of International Service, Senior Fellow at American University in Washington, and is the founder and director emeritus of Carleton University’s Centre for Trade Policy and Law. In addition, he has taught courses in several other countries. He is the author, editor, or co-editor of more than a dozen books and several hundred articles.

Continue Reading 1 Comment

Rock star-scientist Brian Cox confused on more than global temperatures

Written by Dr Jennifer Marohasy

Celebrity physicist Brian Cox misled the ABC TV Q&A audience on at least 3 points-of-fact on Monday night. This is typical of the direction that much of science is taking. cox Richard Horton, the current editor of the medical journal, The Lancet, recently stated that, “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”

Firstly, Cox displayed an out-of-date NASA chart of remodelled global temperatures as proof that we have catastrophic climate change caused by industrial pollution. Another panellist on the program, One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts, tried to raise the issue of cause and effect: querying whether there really was a link between rising temperature and carbon dioxide. This is generally accepted without question. But interestingly – beyond experiments undertaken by a chemist over 100 years ago – there is no real proof beyond unreliable computer simulation models.

Continue Reading 3 Comments

A Light Overhead that Scientists say “Shouldn’t be there”

Written by PSI staff

NASA scientist Peter Schultz in the “Science” program titled “Stellar Gold Rush” (March 30, 2016) showed why science is never settled and why observed phenomena still baffles us. Schultz and other NASA scientists have long been at a loss to explain an odd electrical glow over earth’s moon.

This mystery was first reported in 1978 television program about the Surveyor 7 space mission. Shultz had become fascinated about a report of “Moon Glow” that could not be explained. At the time of the event Dr. Bill Barnes, author of “Space Wars” had said: “There’s a light that’s overhead that shouldn’t be there.”

Continue Reading No Comments

Britain should lead 21st Century nuclear revolution

Written by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

It is hard to imagine now, but Britain once led the nuclear revolution. Ernest Rutherford first broke the nuclei of atoms at Manchester University in 1917. Our Queen opened the world’s first nuclear power plant in 1956 at Calder Hall.

Such were the halcyon days of British atomic confidence, before defeatism took hold and free market ideology was pushed to pedantic extremes.

Most of Britain’s ageing reactors will be phased out over the next decade, leaving a gaping hole in electricity supply. By historic irony the country has drifted into a position where it now depends on anailing state-owned French company to build its two reactors at Hinkley Point, with help from the Chinese Communist Party.

Continue Reading No Comments

Five Modes of Science Engagement

Written by Professor Roger Pielke, Jr.

In my book, The Honest Broker, I describe four modes of engagement by scientists and other experts. They are ideal types and shown in the figure above. The different modes are a function of how we think about democracy and how we think about the proper role of science in society. The book gets into some more detail, of course, on the theoretical background. Here I respond to a few recent requests to provide a high level overview of the different roles, motivated by a workshop I attended last week at the National Academy of Sciences organized by their roundtable on Public Interfaces of the Life Sciences — on Twitter #NASinterface. I also list some thoughts based on my experiences engaging experts on these roles over the past several years.

Continue Reading No Comments

Thin tropical clouds cool the climate

Written by Stockholm University

Thin clouds at about 5 km altitude are more ubiquitous in the tropics than previously thought and they have a substantial cooling effect on climate. thin clouds This is shown in a recent study by researchers from Stockholm University and the University of Miami published in Nature Communications. The cooling effect of mid-level clouds is currently missing in global climate models.

Continue Reading No Comments

Heavily adjusted temperature dataset shows a warming trend, but can we trust it?

Written by Thomas Richard

NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt, who has come under fire for being more activist than scientist, sent out a tweet yesterday predicting that 2016 would be the hottest year on record and said he was 99 percent sure of that claim. According to land-and-sea-based temperature stations, July 2016 was 0.1 degrees Celsius warmer than the 1950 to 1980 timeframe. But when compared to the 1930s, July still is not a record breaker. But only if you don’t rely on an adjusted temperature dataset.

Schmidt, a director for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS), is disseminating a chart on Twitter from a dataset that has been heavily adjusted to show a much larger warming trend than is actually occurring.

Continue Reading No Comments

Professor Brian Cox: Climate Alarmism’s ‘Useful Idiot’

Written by John O'Sullivan

Celebrity British television scientist, Brian Cox, is exposed promoting fraudulent NASA temperature graph to a live Australian audience. In an attempt to discredit fellow panellist Aussie climate skeptic, Malcolm Roberts,  Cox waved his dodgy piece of paper boldly declaring “I’ve brought the graph” (see photo) to a hand-picked audience.

useful idiot

But after the show informed critics were quick to back the skeptic speaker who cut through Cox’s flim-flam to pinpoint precisely the fakery on display.

Continue Reading 6 Comments

Is Most Published Research Wrong? Yep. Here’s Why

Written by William M Briggs

One of my students—my heart soars like a hawk!—sent me the video linked below. I’ll assume you’ve watched it, as my comments make reference to it.

About the dismal effects of p-values, the video already does a bust-up job. Plus, we’re sick of talking about them, so we won’t. I’ll only mention that the same kinds of mistakes are made using Bayes factors; only BFs aren’t used by most researchers, so few see them.

Continue Reading No Comments

Earliest plants are responsible for modern day oxygen levels

Written by Shivali Best

While oxygen first appeared in Earth’s atmosphere 2.4 billion years ago, it took another two billion years to reach the levels we breath in today.

Now a researchers believe they have identified what helped lead to this dramatic increase in oxygen on our planet – moss.

Scientists at the University of Exeter suggest moss-like plants were among the first to colonise the land and triggered oxygen in the atmosphere to increase.

Continue Reading No Comments

How Anthony Watts and Christopher Monckton Helped Prove Slayer Rationalism

Written by Joseph E Postma

Their Research: I had truly forgotten just how much work Mr. Watts had done in helping prove the Slayer’s position that there is no greenhouse effect.  watts moncktonThe following 3 articles are all tied together but the 2nd article is where Anthony and a friend of his actually did some experimentation which ended up totally supporting the Slayers position that there is no greenhouse effect as depicted in climate alarm science:

Continue Reading

UK Government confirms science & technology funding safe despite Brexit

Written by Sam Pudwell

The UK government has confirmed that funding for science and technology research will not be affected by the country’s decision to leave the European Union, promising that EU-agreed funding will continue even after Brexit is finalised. funding

Some of the facilities that will benefit include the Graphene Engineering Innovation Centre in Manchester, the Thames Valley Science Park and Cornwall’s Carluddon Technology Park.

Chancellor Philip Hammond said: “Structural and investment funds projects signed before the Autumn Statement, and Horizon research funding granted before we leave the EU, will be guaranteed by the Treasury after we leave.”

Continue Reading No Comments

Big Chill: ‘Substantial Cooling’ Predicted Within The Next Few Years

Written by Dr Benny Peiser

Climate boffins believe the UK’s topsy-turvy climate is in for a chilly twist within the next few years as three major forms of climate change trigger “substantial cooling”. Drastic changes in ocean conditions, greenhouse gases and a weakening of the sun threaten increasingly worsening winters of blistering blizzards and severe snowstorms for years to come.  big chillAnother major factor in the predicted cool down could be the switch from an usually strong El Nino to a La Nina weather front in the pacific ocean. Meteorologist for AccuWeather Tyler Roys told Daily Star Online La Nina could contribute to the chilly mix. The Met Office said the onset of La Nina from 2017 is likely to “buck the trend” in terms of record-breaking global temperature averages, predicting a cool down across the globe. –Joshua Nevett, Daily Star, 14 August 2016

Continue Reading No Comments

Abundant Scientific Evidence That ‘Global Warming’ Is A Made-Up Concept

Written by Kenneth Richard

The conceptualization of “global warming” has become so entrenched in the lexicon that few give much thought to its dubious derivation.

Many assume that “global warming” actually means that all or nearly all of the globe is warming as a consequence of the “well-mixed” greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (i.e., CO2 concentrations have indeed reached right about 400 parts per million from the Arctic to Antarctica, or all across the globe).  In reality, however, only parts of the globe have been warming.  Large regions of the Earth have seen stable or falling temperatures in recent decades, or even dating back to the mid-20th century, when anthropogenic emissions have been claimed to have caused most climate changes.

Continue Reading No Comments

Political Correctness Prevents Advancement of Science

Written by Alex Berezow

Science can make us uncomfortable. Astronomy proved that the Earth goes around the sun, upending centuries of geocentric theology. Physics tells us that our universe will someday come to an end. DNA sequencing can reveal our true ancestry or genetic predispositions to cancer and Alzheimer’s disease, forever changing our life’s trajectory. dangerous content

As unsettling as those discoveries have been for society, some research is so politically controversial that few dare to speak of it in public for fear of running afoul of the PC police. And this fear, argues Nathan Cofnas in the journal Foundations of Science, obstructs the self-correcting nature of scientific inquiry.

Mr. Cofnas begins the paper with the story of Socrates, who was executed for “corrupting the youth” of Greece. Forebodingly, he adds, “[T]he philosophy of his prosecutors — that morality-threatening scientific investigation should be prohibited — flourishes even today.”

To support his case, Mr. Cofnas focuses on the taboo subject of group differences in intelligence, which he says is suppressed by those who believe that even discussing the topic is “morally wrong or morally dangerous.”

Those who embrace such a viewpoint obviously do so with the honorable intention of preventing discrimination. However, the proverbial road to hell is paved with good intentions. Such misguided efforts to maintain perfect equality can hamper the advancement of knowledge. Mr. Cofnas states:

“[W]hen hypotheses are regarded as supporting certain moral values or desirable political goals, scientists often refuse to abandon them in the light of empirical evidence.”

Is he right? Absolutely, yes.

Not only do intellectuals refuse to abandon politically correct beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence, but simply questioning them can ruin a person’s career. Lawrence Summers’ tenure as president of Harvard was cut short because he suggested that there are intellectual differences between men and women. As a result of such punitive pushback, some researchers are afraid to investigate differences between male and female brains, which certainly exist. Without a doubt, this reticence is holding back the field of neuroscience.

A similar chilling effect can be seen in climatology. The only politically correct belief regarding the climate is that humans are 100{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} responsible for everything bad that happens and that the Four Horsemen are already marching toward Earth. Questioning that apocalyptic and unscientific belief has resulted in multiple researchers being labeled “climate deniers.” Climatology would greatly benefit from the more skeptical approach of so-called “lukewarmers,” but far too many are ostracized and demonized.

Discussions about the causes of homelessness also fall under the purview of the PC police. The politically correct explanation is that homelessness is the result of poverty. While obviously a factor, often left out of the debate is the fact that, according to the National Coalition for the Homeless, 20{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} to 25{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of homeless people are severely mentally ill, a prevalence that is roughly four times that of the general population. The same group estimates that 38{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} and 26{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of homeless people are dependent on alcohol and drugs, respectively. In fact, NCH states that, “Substance abuse [is] the single largest cause of homelessness for single adults.”

Certainly, many — perhaps most — people prefer to ignore reality in favor of feel-good fallacies. Mr. Cofnas believes this phenomenon is rooted in a “deep human impulse to conflate facts and moral values.” In other words, (positive) statements that describe the world as it is are often interpreted by people as (normative) statements that prescribe the world as it ought to be.

This fundamental confusion distorts debate and impedes progress. If Mr. Cofnas is correct that this cognitive dissonance is hardwired into us, then that makes the goal of evidence-based policy sadly unattainable.

Source: Nathan Cofnas. “Science Is Not Always ‘Self-Correcting’: Fact–Value Conflation and the Study of Intelligence.” Found Sci 21: 477. Published online: 1-Feb-2015. DOI: 10.1007/s10699-015-9421-3

Continue Reading No Comments