I like this, a lot:
I agree with much that the commentator has to say.
This line stood out for me on where progress comes from:
The finest candle makers in the world could not even think of electric lights.
Of course, they could not. They thought within the paradigm they knew. That is now the curse of the economic and political worlds we now live in. Thinking is required to come from within existing paradigms to be acceptable to academia. That, unfortunately, is why most of those over-exposed to academia (which includes most graduates) will never have, let alone take the risk of having, an original idea.
I admit to feeling more than a little liberated by breaking free.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I agree with the video that advances often come from the edges of scientific disciplines rather than the centres, although that is not always the case. The enormous collaboration that was necessary to confirm the detection of the Higgs boson, or the detection of gravitational waves, for example, was not fringe science. The failure to detect either of them would have been a major revelation too.
I disagree strongly that peer reviewed papers are academia not science. For sure, you can do science without publishing, but exposing that work to public criticism by publishing is how advances are disseminated and errors and biases are corrected. Referees should be critical, and they can be obstructive, but that is not where the main problem lies. It is in the bureaucratic treadmill of the funding and reward system whose metrics require publication year after year and demands evidence of “impact”. So rather than gambling on reaching for breakthroughs which might take many years to reach fruition, or fail, scientists are rewarded for creeping incremental gradualism that give small results year after year.
It’s all academia though Andrew – and it is all designed to prevent thinking
Andrew: as an academic scientist, I agree with your critique of Richard’s overly broad dismissal of the scientific enterprise. There are many valid critiques of the scientific enterprise and you point to one of the most recent – the bureaucatic impact agenda. However, the one highlighted by Richard – the rejection of the brilliant insights of the ‘outsider’ – is also the standard go-to for the cranks and time-wasters. It is not surprising that the ‘ignored-outsider’, view of science shares much in common with the agendas of anti-vax conspiracy theorists and those who reject climate science.
Just because a charismatic ‘outsider’ makes a grand claim does not mean that the incremental, carefully-assimilated evidence should be rejected. Good science and good scientists are always sceptical, both of their own fields and of new-found claims. When evidence is presented, scientific debate DOES move on (perhaps not smoothly). Perhaps Richard’s concern reflects the ‘science’ of economics?
Economics is bad, but I hear the same everywhere. It is, for example, totally pervasive medicine, where the neoliberal conspiracy with academia – which is totally controlel;d via access to grants, exactly as described.
I think your dismissal is typical of mainstream acadmia. I am sorry – but you are most definitely the problem.
I am not saying that the mad should be endorsed. I am saying thinking should be allowed, and it is not anywhere in academia. Senior acdademics want to cling on to their outdated beliefs. That is the issue.
Quote:….for example, totally pervasive medicine, where the neoliberal conspiracy with academia – which is totally controleld via access to grants, exactly as described.
This is another unjustified assertion. Yes there are some issues with, for example, aspects of drug discovery, but the area is complex and multi-faceted. If you want to debate some of this complexity, make a specific point. Unfortunately, grandiose all-encompassing statements such as that above, by eschewing analysis, diagnosis and prescription, advance nothing.
Quote:….I think your dismissal is typical of mainstream acadmia [sic]. I am sorry – but you are most definitely the problem.
The reason I come to this site is to learn from people, including you, who have a deep understanding of an area (economics and tax policy in particular). In the past you have justifiably taken issue with posts from people who misunderstand or mischaracterise aspects that fall within your area of expertise. This is completely fair. This site is also a place on which people with diverse expertise in other areas offer their opinions. I value these because of the expertise on offer.
What is much less valuable are claims without evidence and attacks which deter and demotivate would-be allies.
Wow, this is naive.
So, to provice evidence I asked ChatGPT this:
What evidence is there that peer reviewed papers in medical journals bias results that favour the pharmaceutical industry and suppress results that do not favour its prescriptions?
This is the reply:
There is substantial evidence suggesting that peer-reviewed medical journals sometimes exhibit bias in favor of the pharmaceutical industry, often suppressing or downplaying negative results. This phenomenon has been studied extensively through systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and case studies. Here are the main types of evidence:
1. Publication Bias
• Pharmaceutical companies are more likely to publish studies with positive outcomes and suppress or delay those with negative results.
• Example: A landmark 2008 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine by Turner et al. found that 94% of published studies on antidepressants showed positive results, while only 51% of all registered studies (including unpublished ones) were actually positive.
2. Selective Reporting & Data Manipulation
• Some industry-sponsored trials selectively report only favorable data while ignoring or misrepresenting unfavorable data.
• Example: A 2004 study in JAMA by Rising et al. analyzed pre-registered clinical trials and found that many trials had changed primary outcomes between registration and publication, often to make the drugs appear more effective.
3. Ghostwriting & Conflicts of Interest
• Some papers in medical journals are ghostwritten by pharmaceutical companies and later signed by prominent academics.
• Example: The case of Wyeth Pharmaceuticals (reported in PLOS Medicine, 2010) showed that ghostwritten articles promoting hormone replacement therapy (HRT) were published in major journals, downplaying risks like breast cancer and heart disease.
4. Retraction of Negative Studies & Legal Cases
• Some pharmaceutical companies have actively suppressed research that challenged the safety or efficacy of their drugs.
• Example: Merck was found to have omitted data about Vioxx’s cardiovascular risks. Internal emails later revealed that negative findings were deliberately hidden from publication.
5. Editorial & Peer Review Manipulation
• Journals often have editorial boards with financial ties to pharmaceutical companies, influencing which studies get published.
• Example: In 2021, The BMJ called out The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine for conflicts of interest in COVID-19 research related to hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir.
Conclusion
There is strong evidence that peer-reviewed medical journals can be biased in favor of pharmaceutical companies. This bias occurs through selective publication, data manipulation, ghostwriting, suppression of negative findings, and conflicts of interest among editors and reviewers. Reforms such as mandatory clinical trial registries and open-access data sharing have been proposed to mitigate these biases.
The list could be as long as you like.
Politely, please do not tell me I do not know what I am talking about. My wife and I (she has eight medical qualifications including MRCP and MRCGP) have been looking at this for a long time.
How much evidence do you need before you take your head out of the sand?
This is my third contribution to this thread — please believe me when I say that I do not set out to be belligerent. However, I feel that I ought to comment on Richard’s Chat-GPT sourced response, and I’d like this read in the context of my other contributions (we can and should improve the systems where we see fault, but let’s not castigate everything and assume that scientific method doesn’t work or is inevitably biased). Instead, I suggest we should highlight the areas for improvement, and improve them. Assuming all peer review is fundamentally wrong to the preferment of those who are not part of the established system is in danger of encouraging bogus nonsense.
RM asked ChatGPT this: “What evidence is there that peer reviewed papers in medical journals bias results that favour the pharmaceutical industry and suppress results that do not favour its prescriptions?”.
ChatGPT provided a response, answering the question posed. There has indeed been a lot of evidence of this matter — I think Phil Hammond (Private Eye’s MD, writer and comedian) wrote about this many years ago. The way that Big Pharma conducted and reported their trials was shown to be very biased. Independent researchers were unable to replicated claimed results about 50% of the time. Negative results were not published (though they could have provided useful information, even if the outcome wasn’t what they had anticipated). There was justifiable concern.
What has been the response? One response is that Big Pharma are not allowed (regulatory changes) to conduct trials unless they publish their planned study beforehand, and the methods that they will use to process the data. This is to try to prevent adjusting the method to try to manipulate a result.
So I asked ChatGPT this: “What steps have been taken to prevent pharmaceutical companies producing biased results?”, and I got this:
“Several steps have been taken over the years to prevent pharmaceutical companies from producing biased results in clinical trials and other research activities. Some of the key measures include:
1. Regulations and Oversight by Regulatory Bodies
FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and similar agencies in other countries (e.g., EMA in Europe, TGA in Australia) have strict regulations for clinical trials, which help ensure that research is conducted in a way that minimizes bias. These regulations require:
Transparent reporting of results, including negative results.
Independent reviews of the clinical trial data.
Pre-registration of clinical trials in publicly accessible databases (e.g., clinicaltrials.gov) to avoid selective reporting of outcomes.
Trials must adhere to Good Clinical Practice (GCP), which includes rigorous standards for methodology, data collection, and analysis.
2. Clinical Trial Transparency
Mandatory Registration: Clinical trials are often required to be registered before they begin, and the results must be posted after completion. This helps prevent “publication bias,” where only positive or favorable results are published.
Open Access to Data: Many pharmaceutical companies and researchers are now making their trial data publicly available (e.g., through repositories like YODA Project, Vivli, or ClinOne). This transparency allows independent researchers to assess the data and reduce the chances of bias being concealed.
3. Independent Oversight Committees
Data Monitoring Committees (DMCs) and Independent Ethics Committees (IECs) are often established to oversee clinical trials. These bodies can halt trials if there are concerns about safety, integrity, or biased outcomes.
Blinded Studies: Many trials use “blinded” or “double-blinded” study designs, where either the participants or both the participants and researchers do not know who is receiving the treatment versus a placebo. This reduces bias in the results.
4. Statistical Methodology
Pre-specified protocols and statistical analyses: Regulatory agencies require pharmaceutical companies to submit a detailed statistical analysis plan before a trial begins. This ensures that the analysis is predefined and not altered post hoc to produce desired results.
Use of intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis, which includes all participants in the analysis, regardless of whether they completed the study. This reduces the chances of “cherry-picking” data that supports a specific conclusion.
5. Conflicts of Interest Disclosure
Pharmaceutical companies are often required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest, such as financial relationships with researchers, academic institutions, or medical professionals. Transparency in these areas allows for more scrutiny of potential biases that might arise from such relationships.
6. Third-Party Audits and Peer Review
Data from clinical trials and pharmaceutical research are typically subject to peer review in scientific journals. Independent experts evaluate the quality of the research, reducing the chance that biased results will be published.
Audits by external organizations or regulatory bodies are also common to ensure compliance with ethical standards and protocols.
7. Post-Market Surveillance
Even after drugs are approved and released to the market, post-market surveillance (also called pharmacovigilance) is carried out to monitor the drug’s long-term safety and effectiveness. This is an additional check to identify any issues that may have been overlooked during initial clinical trials.
8. Increased Scrutiny and Public Awareness
The rise of patient advocacy groups, media scrutiny, and transparency initiatives has increased the pressure on pharmaceutical companies to disclose all findings, both positive and negative.
Patient-reported outcomes are increasingly used to complement clinical trial data and provide a broader perspective on drug efficacy and safety.
9. Whistleblower Protections
There are legal protections for whistleblowers within the pharmaceutical industry, which encourage employees to report unethical practices or biased research, thus promoting a culture of accountability.
Despite these measures, challenges still exist. There is ongoing debate and pressure for continued improvements in the transparency and independence of pharmaceutical research, with calls for stronger enforcement of these safeguards and even greater openness in the industry.”
Sorry, but this is utterly naive.
Let me just take the last point. If you do not know that no whistleblower is ever protected, what ever words are used, you need to acquaint yourself with the real world.
And note that some the examples Chat GPT prepared for me are very recent, and they keep coming to light.
You are the problem if you believe that neoliberalism permits freedom of thinking. In my household’s disciplines – medicine, economics and accounting nothing could be further from the truth. Peer review exists to reinforce hegemony. It succeeds. That is why we are in the mess we’re in.
For heaven’s sake, open your eyes.
You will find that asking Chat GPT to argue any case that you can get ‘evidence’ for a case. You may also note that I previously conceded that there are issues with some aspects of drug discovery (“…there are some issues with, for example, aspects of drug discovery”). Rather than contradicting me, your ChatGPT search makes my point.
You may not however, be aware of other aspects of biological research that are less interwoven with potentially problematic studies based on commercial interests impacting their publication. Nor indeed may you appreciate the degree to which the fields involved are already aware of the issues involved. Lastly, you may not be aware of the other major pressures on research quality such as the selective rewarding of ‘novelty’ over ‘reproducibility’. This last point regarding basic biology is explicitly a problem of academia and not industry. Paradoxically, pharmaceutical companies have been at the forefront of efforts to try to reform the incentives involved since they have led to the companies chasing ‘drug targets’ that end up being illusory.
In summary and as I originally argued, the situation is complicated with brilliant academic and commercial work being intertwined with a number of problems. In many ways, this is similar to many other areas of life. Overall though the type of overarching statement you made about science (and by implication academic medical research) was unwarranted and dismissive of many good scientists who, contrary to the straw man model, ARE aware of the issues in their fields and take a keen interest in the relationship between their work and wider societal issues.
Is being patronising your normal modus operandi?
You’d fit well into the peer review system as it is. Your arrogance is exactly what the system is now based upon – precisely to maintain the status quo which you are obviously wedded to, which is why nothing ever makes progress any more whilst those creating the impediments are incredibly well paid to do so.
PS I think I have now worked out who you are. Big pharmaceutical companies dominate research in your field – and raising funding for anything but pharmaceutical based solutions to problems is nigh on impossible, as the heterodox thinkers in biological research (there are some) point out, often. Are they all wrong? Who cares if peer review works if all the research is pre-vetted to fit big pharma’s Overton window?
There is considerable discussion of this topic within the Physics community. Despite much press and public interest about issues such as dark matter, dark energy etc, etc, there have been no major breakthroughs in physics for about 70 years. This is discussed by physics such as Lee Smoljn (“The trouble with physics”) and Sabine Hossenfelder (Lost in Math). Today, Einstein’s breakthrough papers would be most unlikely to be published because he was an outsider with radical ideas.
And this is very much wider than physics.
Essentially academia is set up to produce peer reviewed papers and that is all. Yes, useful stuff also emerges from time to time. If you have lot’s of bright people working they will inevitably produce some useful results. But it’s not a good return o investment; we could, and should, be doing much better. Good results are in spite of academia and not because of it.
Thanks, Tim. We agree. 🙂
John D. Rockefeller set up the General Education Board in 1902 claiming “a desire to improve the educational system”. It was a ruse. He is credited with saying ““I don’t want a nation of thinkers, I want a nation of workers.”
Funding universities followed. This contributed to the privatisation of further education, and the difficulty in criticising knowledge.
Read: “The Dark Truth of the Educational System Shaped by John D. Rockefeller”
https://medium.com/@sofialherani/the-dark-truth-of-the-educational-system-shaped-by-john-d-rockefeller-77bf1b0167dd
Thanks
Oh good for you Richard… and yes, how very true.
I’m reminded of TS Khun and his work, ‘the structure of scientific revolutions’ and just how difficult it is to be able to even ‘think’ outside of the conceptual framework to which we become accustomed – for me, cases in point have been the intellectual capture of my understanding of how money works, by neoliberalism (household finances equal to Fiat currency issuingbstates),(and your work has been especially important in changing my understanding wrt to MMT), and more latterly, breaking away from the materialist conception of the universe towards a much more nuanced view that life, love, joy, spiritualism (and possibly pan psychism) and music cannot be explained simply as the products of a simple causal nexus….!!!
my favourite Kuhn quote is that paradigms shift when the ‘Old Guard” retire or die. He also says, I think, that change often comes quickly, over a short period. That is why I am hopeful about the work of Richard and other people. It may seem they are banging away with little impact but things can change under the surface.
I hope so
Marc
the Scientific and Medical Network is made up of people who don’t accept the materialist view of the Universe.
If you don’t know them, you might find them of interest.
https://scientificandmedical.net/
Thank you for this so relevant extension of your previous, much needed, article “Trump Hates Free Speech”.
It is suggested that “Free Speech”, as vital as it is for effective citizen and children focused societies, is being weakened in at least three ways.
1) It seems that, recently and currently, that the whole of main stream education has been, and is, organised to restrict/avoid critical and lateral thinking.
2) Successive governments/the single transferable party have effectively connived at stunting the physical development of ever more children. Consequently they have stunted their abilities and opportunities to learn and think well. They have increased their cumulative disadvantage. [Cumulative Disadvantage: https://okayboomer.substack.com/p/cumulative-disadvantage-how-small%5D
” The Cost of Hunger and Hardship” found that one in seven people across the U K face hunger and hardship and one in five children are growing up in these circumstances and that 46% more children are facing hunger and hardship than two decades ago.
[“Stunt: to slow or prevent the growth or development of someone or something” [Cambridge Dictionary]
3) The main stream media, including the B B C, fail to inform its paying public with information and ideas which are reasonably objective, deep and critical. The M. S. M. also fails its national community by malinforming them.
“Malinformation is information which is based on fact, but removed from its original context in order to mislead, harm, or manipulate.” [Wikipedia]
The article below provides some detail on this
https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/03/18/can-we-have-media-that-inform-the-public/
This reminds me of the “mantras” in the world of financial advice in that most follow the orthodoxies: –
1. Stocks only go up in the long run. That isn’t true on an individual basis.
2. Bonds are stable and secure. That isn’t true on an individual basis, either.
3. Cash is an awful investment. That is clearly nonsense on an individual basis.
4. Pension drawdown is king. Only because it keeps lots of hands in your pocket.
5. Annuities are terrible things. No, they are not – they are simple and cheap – but they remove hands from your pockets.
Etc. etc.
Agreed
This is one reason why climate academics have not been more forceful and insistent on exposing the climate crisis in fear of losing their jobs for taking an anti-establishment stance.
I suppose scientific breakthroughs have always been subject to pressure from vested interests Galileo onwards .
Academia seems to be becoming a semi privatised industry much of it in the UK funded by overseas students paying high fees, and staffed by academics on insecure contracts , bound to the treadmill of annual publication and , as you say Richard , so many peer reviewers will be invested in received wisdom .
But physics does seem to admit it is in a bit of a mess with dark matter, dark energy, string theory , black holes , with many concepts apparently contradictory etc. In that sense physics does seem to be able to contemplate far-out ideas.
Despite all the academia pressures – some good things will get through.
But economics and politics with their lack of empirical rigour and their real world messiness seem particularly vulnerable to take over by vested interests – especially when funded by Heritage Foundation and the like . Presumably that’s why we have nearly all political parties signed up to ‘balancing the books’,
The problem goes beyond academia. When was the last time supposedly innovative companies like Apple invented anything new? Did they ever? They just took government-developed technology and branded it. Microsoft grows year on year, but when did anything new come out of Microsoft?
Their whole operating system was ‘borrowed’
It is my good fortune to work with recently graduated engineers. My business partner and I spend much of our time trying to get the to think – outside of the box. Sigh.
Oh they are better than me with spreadhseets (anybody is better than me with a spreadsheet) but being able to pull a bunch of ideas together & make it work………..
Brilliant video – thanks for putting it up – brought a smile to my face.
Oh, one other thing, many of the reports & papers I read tend to be circular – referencing one article or another with in turn references other articles – & before you know it – you are back where you started.
So true…
Based on my experience at Uni, a few years ago, I am in complete agreement with you on this. The major flaw in my botched UK university retraining to join the NHS was a case in point. Required textbooks were minimal, as the Operating Department Practitioner students were expected to rely on ‘peer reviewed’ papers to replace focusing on the untaught essential core curriculum and skills lab practice that they should have received at Uni. We had to submit ‘reading logs’ demonstrating how each article related to what we were not being taught!
This total dereliction of duty by our universities leaves the bulk of teaching reliant on our overworked NHS staff to provide on-the-job training. I believe UK nurses, midwives, and paramedics, also now follow a similar overwhelmingly academic teaching program. Sadly, most students will enter our hospitals grossly unprepared to actually perform the basic tasks of their job safely without ongoing supervision and additional on-the-job training.
I will never forget my first clinical assignment at the Veterans Hospital in Miami. On day one, I went into cardiac surgery for a Coronary Artery Bypass Graft case where I was initially asked to observe. My big moment came after being asked to scrub-in as the surgeon called for “someone to hold the heart”! The circulating nurse pushed me forward for the surgeon to anonymously reach for my gloved hand, which he positioned in the ice slurry directly beneath the patient’s heart. Holding the patient’s heart steady for the surgeon was an excruciatingly painful task. However, at the end of the day, I called my mother in England to tell her: “I held a human heart in my bare hands”.
The trust demonstrated by that VA surgeon was reliant on the knowledge that I was fully trained to take on such a huge responsibility. This illustrates the comprehensive level of training expected of US students before they are ever permitted to enter clinical practice for the first time. None of the students that I trained with here in England would have reached a level of safe proficiency to even complete the six weeks of orientation that I went through before working in the OR at Johns Hopkins in America. NHS nurses used to undergo a very rigorous training regimen, but relying on universities to fail in their teaching responsibilities is overacademesizing the profession to make UK training less reliable as well as burdensome on existing staff.
Thanks
My experience (speaking as an ex academic) is that the situation got worse over the years from the early 2000s as the university sectors research assessment exercise (RAE – in its various guises) became more and more rigid and dictatorial in its requirements and structure. And what we ended up with from the 2010s is basically a performance measurement system – dressed up as research “excellence” – with all the gaming of the system that ALWAYS attaches to any performance measurement system.
For example, when I first became an academic, in 1993, we were a few years away from the second RAE (the first was in 1986 and the cycle’s roughly every five years). At that time every academic at the university I was at – and all others that I knew of – were encouraged to undertake research along with their teaching. Indeed, it was encouraged, as it was believed that this could and should feed into your teaching. This was certainly the case with me and my public administration colleagues (in a department of politics and economics) as we conducted a range of research into the emerging ‘electronic government’ and its impact on government, policy, politics, and thus public services (e.g: Horrocks, I. and Webb, J. (1994) Electronic Democracy: a policy issue for UK local government?; Hoff, J., Horrocks, I., and Tops, P. (2001) Democratic Governance and New Technology). The rules of the RAE at the time were that academics were encouraged to be included in the RAE, and also – and importantly – that your research could be submitted to different academic panels, depending on where an academic thought their work best fit. This approach was also supposed to encourage inter-disciplinary cooperation and practice – something that had been seen as a positive for some time (but not anymore).
But over time the rules and approach governing RAE’s became more and more rigid, largely as a result of successive governments seeking ever more explicit metrics for ‘proving’ that research was value for money, and delivered ‘engagement’. And as these metrics became more specific and extensive (i.e. more performance indicator based, even if that phrase was never acknowledged), so the RAE subject assessment panels, and universities, reacted. Academic journals were ranked and starred – perish the thought that anyone would want to get published in anything lower than three star, and even that became frowned upon. Academics who had a smaller research output – perhaps because they were doing lots of teaching – were dropped from being included in RAE submissions, and eventually deemed ‘teaching only’. And it soon became apparent that in many universities being a ‘teacher’ was a far lowlier position than being ‘research active’.
In short – and to save boring readers with more detail – what had once been a relatively open system, that encouraged all academics, and particularly young academics, to do something that was once considered an integral part of being an academic – research as well as teaching – now became the preserve of an ‘elite’. And like all elites, challenges to the paradigms that underpin the positions they occupy are not welcome. Furthermore, inter-disciplinarity – from which so many learnt so much through the exchange of ideas, thinking and research findings – became a threat to the ‘turf’ that members of the ‘elite’ have staked their names on. Hence, more focus on ‘specialisms’, and inward focus.
Of course, there are other reasons why academia has become as it is in the UK and elsewhere (the review systems for journals is one), and thus why it’s possible to argue that academia is no longer good for the advancement of science (across all disciplines). But without wishing to be glib, it once again pretty much boils down to what we’d expect from the neoliberal thinking that dominates our lives.
So much to agree with Ivan
I was in that ‘elite’ group for near enough a decade. What did I see? A great deal of very narrow minded work, much of whoich proved nothing as the null hypothesis being tested was itself meaningless.
Where to begin … I think you are over-generalising — and applying a common issue (any orthodoxy/habit) to narrowly criticise a sector with which you are currently disenchanted.
Are there problems with the current academic system? Absolutely. It is probably too big – with too many players making little serious contribution. It is an “industry” that has been (till recently) encouraged to grow (good for the economy / one of UK’s best exports, etc). The insecurity / workload on doctoral and post-doc positions is something I think would deserve compassion from normal contributors to this column. This has led to a pressure for people to ‘publish, publish, publish’ — many of these publications add little value or are derivative – but it will meet the criteria the system has said will be used to judge success. They are perfectly set up to achieve, what they achieve ……… An alternative is to have longer term funding, allowing more freedom. Of course, that approach can be abused too….
However, that is not the same as saying that peer review is flawed. The scientific method has been remarkably successful. Peoples’ output is rigorously tested — eventually!!! Hypothesis are tested (knowing for example that if a given accelerator cannot establish results with a specific time/power then the hypothesis fails the test — empirical evidence is fundamental. Compare this to other areas of endeavour (economics, many humanities, even history) where the purpose seems often to justify a position – not to come up with the best and most consistent explanation consistent with the facts.
Has there been a long history of people who have ‘held on to flawed thinking’ — absolutely. Kelvin’s huge contributions to Electromagnetism is overshadowed (possibly because of his business interests) – but because he didn’t / couldn’t adapt to sub-atomic concepts. Einstein seems to be forgiven (‘God doesn’t play dice) for his reluctance to accept Quantum Theory. Soviet agronomist/biologist held back Soviet biological science because he rejected Mendelian genetics in favour or Lamark. Fred Hoyle probably held back 20th C. physics with his refusal to accept the Big Bang Theory (even though he coined the term). I can’t quite remember the quote: Something like, Scientific theories progress despite the established old guard, not because of them. (It was said of Hoyle, I think).
HOWEVER: The beauty of the scientific method is that progress has occurred – sometimes delayed until the old-guard are cleared out!
So: Is there a need to adapt the university system – definitely. Is the (international) method of assessing academic achievement flawed – yes. Is the scientific method or peer review the cause – almost probably not. Has there always been politics in the way that some people are elevated to the detriment of others – absolutely – and it is rife in academia (look at Newton’s battles and dishonourable behaviour with those he thought were his rivals). But it is rife in other aspects of life. I looked up WIKI yesterday to explore ‘St Patrick’ – turns out it looks very much like his writings are dated to allow him to take (all) the credit and not recognise another.
Plus ca change?
Have you ever been through peer review?
It’s a game. You guess who might review you based on the journal. You write the paper to suit its style. And then you cite the likely peer reviewers as many times as you can. If you don’t, you don’t get published. They reject you are ask for revisions to include their work or that in the journal – to which there must be a bias. This is true across all disciplines. And when I refused to play this game journals stopped asking me to review, thankfully.
This is the reality.
Scientific metjhod went out a long time ago. Noeliberalism demanded its demise. The market had to rule.
Many times! Was also a reviewer for several IEEE, IEE, IET journals (and their corresponding magazines), etc – though not sure why that should matter. I have also been a field scientist / researcher in the Arctic and sub-Antarctic. It was all some time ago. Maybe I left before things got so bad?
So let’s unpick what this thread was about and my response:
– The video presents one field-scientist’s critique of students he has had in the field. He then states some misconceptions his students have, and states that peer review is ‘academia’ – not science. Later, he states: “when new knowledge emerges, new scientific insights, they can never, ever, be peer reviewed”. This is simply not correct – and I only need to give one example to prove so – what about the developments that have allowed us to use multiple transmit / receive antennas to “exceed” the Shannon bound in Communications? What about nanopore sequencing technology? Both pretty ground-breaking. There are many more….
We cannot accept broad statements like his, even if they appeal to our prejudices, without scrutiny.
– Do I think that the university system can be improved – absolutely.
– Is peer review subject to bias – yes. It always has been.
– Can it be improved – I’m sure it can.
– Is there an better alternative – I’m not aware of one (other than an improved version to correct for known errors/ flaws).
– I gave examples of how quite famous figures had held back science in the past …. but the scientific method has correction built in.
– So — let’s not reject everything. Instead, Let’s identify practical steps that can be easily adopted that can make a positive benefit. A bit like the line you use to support the Taxing Wealth Report ?
I am sorry, but I really do not think exceptions prove your point. They make mine.
I am not really sure otherwise what your comment adds – it is generic, and so feels rather peer reviewed.
What most academics – and especially vast numbers who have been exposed to academia know – is that the last thing it encourages is any drum of creative thinking. The vast majority of it is all about dotting i’s and crossing t’s at best. Sorry – but that’s nit even opinion. It’s fact.
Ex-teacher, I have to agree with Richard on this issue. But I will add this, which is really an extension of the argument I made in an earlier comment about the RAE’s,
I ‘retired’ (voluntary redundancy) from academia at the end of 2019. I started in 1993. I think I was first asked to review a paper for publication in a journal in 1996. And by that time I’d also had several papers published in several different journals as well as some chapters in books. At that time, and through until 2010ish, standard practice – i.e. the advice given to young/new academics – was to write up your research and then look for a journal (or a couple) that covered that particular subject/specialism, get the journals style sheet, revise your paper accordingly and submit. Not once did any of the senior academics I worked with advise me to look at the members of a journals editorial board, or in any other way try to work out who might be a peer reviewer of your paper.
Then you sat back and waited (sometime a very long time) to hear from the editor as to whether your paper was accepted – which was usually, ‘subject to incorporating the comments of the reviewers.’ If there were three reviewers, as was often the case, and two were positive, then after revision a paper was usually accepted. And I can say categorically that most of the reviews I read over the first decade of my academic career, both as an author of a papers and as a reviewer, were generally written as positive ‘constructive criticism’. But by the time I left academia that was no longer the case. Indeed, so appalled was I by some of the hatchet jobs that fellow reviewer did on papers, that had I continued as an academic after 2019 I’d made up my mind not to participate in the process any more. And yes, much of a ‘hatchet job’ consisted of taking issue with absolutely genuine arguments, research approaches and findings that it was obvious ran counter to the positions of the reviewers. That’s not a system that is in any way beneficial to the advancement of science – in all its forms – or indeed, to the careers of many young academics.
Everything to agree with, Ivan.
Ivan, thanks for your constructive response.
I left academia before 2010. It sounds like the system’s flaws have multiplied.
For the avoidance of doubt, my comments were intended to avoid unsupported claims and generalisations. Your comments support that my perspectives on UK academia are probably out of date. Thank you.
At no point though did I make any statement trying to justify or promote neoliberalism …. I do feel the methods used to challenge dissenting voices (here and elsewhere) should try to reach a positive outcome and not be closed down / dismissed. Agreeing to disagree is fine … But we should engage with good grace when the dissent is intended to be constructive. Best.
You now annotate your experience is out of date.
I can only work with the limited information you provide. I have no background data. You do have that on me.
If I conclude incorrectly from what you say might it be that your argument is incomplete? Here, it was.
I try to do something quite difficult here. Don’t be surprised if I get it wrong, in your opinion, if you don’t give me the data to get it right.
I am not apologising. You did not engage with good grace, because you assumed I knew data that you withheld that changed matters. That did not help.
A bit late in the day to add my small contribution. It has been an interesting post.
When I got involved in counselling/psychotherapy in the early 1990s, there were a number of ‘schools’ and some thought themselves quite superior. But by the turn of the century new students demanded -rightly in my view-a more integrative approach and I think that is modern approach. ‘The Old Guard” having given way. Kuhn was right.
The Govt Improving Access to Psychological Therapies program, in which I played a humble part, did promote CBT Cognitive Behavioural Therapy as a sort of gold standard. It was ‘scientific’! A lot of people resisted this and it was relaxed. It is now NHS Talking Therapies.
Some academic work has been of great use. Prof. Martin Gilbert’s Compassion Focused therapy for example. ( Immodestly I think It is close to the style I evolved for myself ) It also had links with Buddhism. The Dalai Lama has had conversation with scientists and philosophers for about 30 years and I find them fascinating. In some of the early talks he was told Buddhism was wrong on some things. He said, “if that is so, Buddhism will have to change”. But as the talks evolved , the western view changed!
Mark Gibson above mentioned Panpsychism. The Scientific and Medical Network is an organisation he might like to look up. They debate such subjects. Many of its very distinguished people have waited until retirement before going public with some of their views. Which backs up your post today.
Thanks
Where’s my copy of “Against Method” by Feyerabend? It seems to have disappeared after many moves. As I recall, a large part of this argues that Galileo only persuaded his critics by use of propaganda, and that had they investigated his work more thoroughly, it would have been rejected. His work prefigures the critique of academia with its defensive of existing paradigms at all costs; and this in 1976.
1976?
To help out here – I think 1976 is Fayerabend, not Galileo.
Thanks