While reading Gould this past weekend and listening to the discussions we had during class on Tuesday, I couldn't help but be a little saddened by some of the conclusions we were coming to, one of which being that science can be easily influenced by prejudice and bias. While most of us likely consider what Morton was seeking to prove and the way he went about doing so ridiculous and fallacious, it serves as a grave reminder of what to expect in any science in any time period. "Bad" science is done all the time, and it is only through aggressive peer review and merciless editing that quality data/conclusions are published. Unfortunately, sometimes this isn't even enough.
For areas of study that only have a handful of experts, politics can take a toll. While both the author and the peer reviewers are anonymous, it is often pretty easy to tell who wrote the manuscript and who wrote the comments. Feelings about that person can cause serious problems. A typical scenario being "Oh, John Doe was my reviewer last time about he gave me negative feedback, so I'm going to do the same to him now." Of course they would need to provide a much better reason for the rejection than this, but rationalization often goes a long way, especially if there is more than one reviewer that does not like the author. Project funding can also fall under the same trap.
While I cannot say that I have had any firsthand experience with this, I will say that many of the people I have worked with in the past have. Luckily it has only occurred with lesser known journals and funding agencies.
Kathleen,
ReplyDeleteAs I read your post, I found myself agreeing with you 100%. Sadly, many prople do base their research off predetermined biases. For example, in the field of psychology, Facilitated Communication (FC), was used for an aid in the communication with austistic people. This treatment gave hope to families across the country with autistic family members. However, this technique was never researched and later proved to not be helpful at all in aiding communication. This is one of the many times that researchers have put their own hope for fame ahead of the truth, leading to more harm than good. The moral of this story is that although it is a sad truth, people will never change. Although research is supposed to be "pure", it never will be, because we as humans are flawed. Although Gould's design is not perfect, I think that he was able to recognize this flaw in human kind and try to fix the previous experiment the best way he knew how. Also, although I have never gone through the process of being published, some of my colleagues have. Being published is quite the daunting and difficult task, which leads me to the question: How is it that "bad" research and statistics can not only pass the reviews of one's partner in research, but also the people who review these articles/books?
Excellent points both of you. I recently proposed a research project and didn't think of the cultural or racial bias that may be involved in the testing. Luckily after careful scrutiny and a thorough board review I was able to pass it through my own screening and the screening of others. I believe if I take nothing else from this class the idea of a priori conclusions will stay with me throughout my entire career.
ReplyDelete