People have already blamed science reform for what is happening.
For 15 years I have said: If we do not get our shit together (less publication bias, higher quality, more coordination) someone else is going to implement change top down, and we are not going to like how they do it.
And here we are.
For 15 years I have said: If we do not get our shit together (less publication bias, higher quality, more coordination) someone else is going to implement change top down, and we are not going to like how they do it.
And here we are.
Comments
Not that those would even be good excuses considering what's the plan.
When you cite *blog posts* with the worst design by known scammers funded by an antivax group as the kind of research to rely on, it means for you "fraud" is just others' disagreement.
He for one didn't apply that the slightest (quoting a guy that literally got grift tips from *Wakefield*) and it's the same trolling used for voting fraud claims.
Also, the goal of reducing gov't funding for science and otherwise has been present for a very long time. These organizations did not come to this view from a rational evaluation of reproducibility debates.
But I think they did rationally evaluate the evidence on the state of academia. Their criticism of a too high amount of waste is just true. Their proposed solution might be horribly flawed. But their analysis was not irrational.
The search for rationalizations to support the fixed conclusion has taken many forms over those decades. Bad faith reasoning with true claims is not rational analysis.