linking back to brembs.net






My lab:
lab.png
Welcome Guest
Username:

Password:


Remember me

[ ]
 Currently Online (55)
 Extra Information
MicroBlog
You must be logged in to post comments on this site - please either log in or if you are not registered click here to signup

[23 Dec 12: 13:20]
Inbox zero! I don't even remember the last time I could say that!

[06 Aug 12: 14:21]
Phew! Done with nine 20min oral exams, three more to go. To be continued tomorrow...

[14 Oct 11: 11:45]
Just received an email from a computer science student - with an AOL email address?

[03 Jul 11: 22:26]
Google citation alerts suck: I just found out by accident I rolled over h-index of 13 and 500 citations http://blogarchive.brembs.net/citations.php

[21 May 11: 18:14]
6.15pm: Does god have Alzheimer? No #rapture in Europe...

[01 May 11: 11:31]
w00t! Just been invited to present at OKCon 2011! #OKCon2011


Networking

Subscribe to me on FriendFeed
Follow brembs on Twitter

Research papers by Björn Brembs
View Bjoern Brembs

Science Blog Directory
Random Video
SciSites
Game theory has been an important scientific tool to study the dynamics of social interactions n a community. Actually, my first publication is about the evolution of cooperation and how certain aspects of it can be modeled by the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma.
I think it would be worthwhile to apply this tool to current developments in the science community. With funding being restricted (either overall or to certain topics) worldwide, competition between researchers also increases. This point was raised in a recent discussion over at ScienceBlogs.com on Open Notebook Science and fuels the debate on scientific misconduct.
Restricting funding increasingly to "hot" topics will lead to researchers aggregating in these topics like fish in a drying pond. Obviously, everybody will compete for the deepest spot. Moreover, the few researchers left in "cold" topics feel the pressure to "hype" their results in order to get funds. In the worst case, as a "cold" topic researcher is tempted to m(f)ake his topic "hot" with some surprising finding - not for fame or recognition, but to put food on the table. Few people are willing to fabricate data for fame, but if if you pressure them by essentially forcing them to decide between the highway and survival? Thus, with reference to open notebooks, how do you establish Open Science if there is currently an unprecedented incentive to fabricate data? How much less incentive does this current climate provide to share data than previous decades?
Indeed game theory can be applied exquisitely well to the research community. Currently all incentives are set to "cheat", yielding "all defect" as the only viable Evolutionary Stable Strategy. How do you switch off the pressure cooker, which only provides incentives to cheat and makes our results less reliable? Producing reliable data is difficult enough without fearing that you'll be out of a job if this particular results doesn't come out as a slam dunk on the front page of all major newspapers. Isn't it in the public interest that the research sponsored by tax money is at least reliable?
Posted on Wednesday 09 May 2007 - 10:02:38 comment: 0
science politics   science   politics   cheating   misconduct   game theory   


You must be logged in to make comments on this site - please log in, or if you are not registered click here to signup
Render time: 0.8809 sec, 0.0215 of that for queries.