Reforming Science

A pair of articles in Infection and Immunity.  In addition to summarizing problems, they offer the following reforms (all greatly abridged in the excerpts below):

From Reforming Science: Methodological and Cultural Reforms:

Revising criteria for promotion.  A reform of the promotion process based on careful peer evaluations of scientific quality and the specific contributions of the authors might help to reduce the present emphasis on priority. Furthermore, increasing the value of collaborative publications when considering promotion could provide important incentives for greater cooperation between scientists.

Enhanced training in probability and statistics.  Knowledge of probability and statistics is essential for the design, execution, and interpretation of many scientific experiments. Although most scientists have some knowledge of probability and statistics and can calculate “P values” using statistical software, the level of statistical expertise varies greatly among individuals.

Use of checklists.  There is conclusive evidence that the use of checklists can reduce errors in human activities ranging from aviation to surgery (17). Science should be no exception.

A vision of a healthier scientific culture.  Science functions best when scientists are motivated by the joy of discovery and a desire to improve society rather than by wealth, recognition, and professional standing.

From Reforming Science: Structural Reforms:

Time for a renewed investment in science.

Balancing and renewing the scientific workforce.  However, it must be recognized that one of the greatest obstacles to recruiting the best and brightest students to scientific careers is the unhappiness of scientists working in the current environment. Anxiety over the future is at an all-time high, and there is concern that stopgap measures to set aside funds for new investigators have only intensified competition for funds among senior scientists. If the poor morale of active scientists is not addressed, all of the new initiatives will be for naught.

Restricting laboratory size.  The efficiency of laboratories in functioning, exchanging ideas, and producing new information must be a function of the lab size and composition. This raises the question: what is an optimal lab size? An interesting study by Jeremy Berg, the former head of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, suggested diminishing returns once a laboratory has more than about $750,000 in direct costs (2006 U.S. dollars) (41). Other possible beneficial changes from a limitation on laboratory size would be the creation of more principal investigator positions and a renewed emphasis on investigator-initiated projects.

([via](http://www.metafilter.com/115894/Publish-or-Perish#4342892))