With science funders like NIH and NSF, we need to dramatically expand their capacity to assess reproducibility, as well as to investigate the more extreme case of research fraud. Otherwise, we could be wasting easily several billion dollars a year on fraud and irreproducible research.
Agree completely - funders have been slow off the mark to realise that the current system incentivises showy science with quick results. The ALS story is heart-breaking.
I have 2 additional thoughts:
1. I'd like to see funders support collaborative projects - even adversarial collaborations - where different groups tackle the same question. Could use same or different methods. So replication/generalisability built in from the get-go, rather than as afterthought.
2. Would be great if a University set up a MSc course that trained people in how to detect fraud/questionable research. Alas, idea came too late for me to push for it here in Oxford. Might be feasible to bolt it on to a course in a topic like Evidence-based medicine.
And then there is the NSF's general application guide, versus the specific RFP in question, each of which recursively and maddeningly refer back to each other.
Agree completely - funders have been slow off the mark to realise that the current system incentivises showy science with quick results. The ALS story is heart-breaking.
I have 2 additional thoughts:
1. I'd like to see funders support collaborative projects - even adversarial collaborations - where different groups tackle the same question. Could use same or different methods. So replication/generalisability built in from the get-go, rather than as afterthought.
2. Would be great if a University set up a MSc course that trained people in how to detect fraud/questionable research. Alas, idea came too late for me to push for it here in Oxford. Might be feasible to bolt it on to a course in a topic like Evidence-based medicine.
I do grant writing for nonprofits, public agencies, and some research-based businesses; the barriers and challenges the NIH and NSF put up never cease to amaze me: https://seliger.com/2018/04/11/no-rush-nsf-accelerating-discovery-educating-future-stem-workforce-program/.
And then there is the NSF's general application guide, versus the specific RFP in question, each of which recursively and maddeningly refer back to each other.
1/10th of 1%?!
It should be 10-20%! Probably even more.