Shared publicly  - 
The current way in which we do science is plagued by many fundamental problems.
One of them is that we don't do enough replications. There are many reasons for this. While everyone agrees that it is crucially important for science as a whole to do so, the individuals who would have to do the work have very few incentives (and actually quite a few disincentives) not to replicate. This is a tragedy of the commons scenario. The question is what to do about it. I think this won't change until the incentive structure changes. +Chris Said tackled the details of this problem and proposes solutions as to what exactly should be done. This is important stuff. I suggest you have a look.

My only concern is that the notion of "reform" might not go far enough. Re-form implies that there was a previous state that we lost and should aspire to re-attain. Not sure if such a state ever existed. Perhaps it did. But we need to do a lot better than we are, if our field is not going to be built on foundations of clay (not built to last)...
don wallace's profile photoRobert Beckstead's profile photoDaniël Crompton's profile photoDan Mønster's profile photo
how to increase incentives?, install a science inquisition to keep the faith pure. Scientist and institutions who've been proofed to fake findings should pay a fine that goes to fund an organization that will investigate rumours and If found legit rewards the one who brought it up.
+michel prins, and who will have the authority to check up on the science inquisitioners?
who has the autorithy on whats science and not now?
just out of my hat, let all top universities send one scientist in, only one year terms plz cause they could be bought too. :P
Well, that funding agencies end up grooming students/post-docs for careers as academic funding agents (so that they can return the favours) is another problem . . . still, I think that +Chris Said's proposition would be a good start.
money is the root of all evil so if you want to keep science clean make perverting it deer.
Maybe, but offering an incentive is not quite the same as establishing science police.
Add a comment...