Steve Goodman, Stanford Medical School, Akkad. -Demia discussed on Inquiring Minds
And so so there's some of these are just sort of bad habits to get picked up. Again, not deliberate is just kind of the momentum of the field. I think also a lot of this is driven by individuals, young scientists who are trying to make a Mark, a lot of the research that go. That takes places actually done in the hands of a post doctoral scientists. Somebody who's gotten their PHD in his trying to build a career in science. That's a tough road because, oh. Probably about twelve percent of these people in who get these post doc will actually end up on a tenure track job, which is kind of what everybody wants. So it's a, it's a very cutthroat world and even highly talented scientists don't make the cut and and so it sort of comes down to you have a few years in somebody's laboratory, and you've got to get fabulous results, or your career is going to take a very sharp turn. And so that kind of incentive is just is just baked into the process. And it's not that someone says, well, I'm just going to do whatever it takes, but people start seeing what they want to see in their experimental results as opposed to sort of stepping back and and maybe being a little bit more skeptical or so on. And you know, I'm certainly not an expert in laboratory techniques. I'm not going to go out there and say that people are just using, you know, terrible laboratory technique, but I think that it is the case that scientists aren't necessarily thinking through these things as carefully as they can because the incentives are not there for them to do that. This is one of those incredibly thorny subjects and Akkad. -demia thinking through the incentive models for scientists because it pokes at training and tenure and money, and it and status. And so it's deeply intertwined with with history and some external pressures that the university faces. And I, I think one of the things like after working at a university for for decades is that most universities that I've seen are small c, conservative in a lot of nature's, they, they usually don't change big structure elements like this quickly. Is that your survey shin and reporting on this book as well? And do you see hope for change around any of these incentives? Both. I agree with you that universities tend to be very conservative and you know, universities really want their scientists to go out and bring home the federal research dollars. So whatever works if they're researchers are bringing in the dollars, that is how they measure success. Even if the studies that they're producing what those dollars. Turn out not to be that helpful in the long run. So so the incentives for the universities are also a little bit askew, but there is hope in an actually I, I am seeing some changes as a result of this of this sort of soul-searching. One great example is I was talking to Steve Goodman who's at the Stanford University medical school, and he was talking about the fact that he'd been asked to write a letter of recommendation for somebody who is up for tenure, and he started doing the usual thing which was reviewing a bunch of their. Journal articles and talking about how many things hit pub. This person had published and so on and doing sort of the quantitative stuff. And his letter was kicked back and they said, Dr. Goodman, what we really want you to do is focus on, you know, get away from all this quantitative stuff, which is unfortunately far too often how scientists get picked for tenure or whatever. And you know, tell us if this person is doing good science and you know, let's get, let's get beyond the sort of, you know how many papers did they publish in science nature and sell because we're de emphasizing that at the Stanford medical school and and Dr Goodman was thrilled to hear that that his own institution was was starting to change its culture about how it thought about this stuff..