‘Bad science’ spreads through natural selection, says study

New research also finds that the statistical power of studies in social and behavioural science has not improved in half a century

September 21, 2016
Dr Frankenstein and Igor in laboratory
Source: Getty
Bad science: laboratory methods can propagate directly, through the production of graduate students who go on to start their own labs, or indirectly

“Bad science” spreads through universities in a process similar to Darwinian natural selection, a paper has argued.

It coins the phrase “the natural selection of bad science”, whereby laboratories that use potentially shaky methods that lead to lots of publication produce successful graduate students who spread these methods when they themselves open new labs.

“Laboratory methods can propagate either directly, through the production of graduate students who go on to start their own labs, or indirectly, through prestige-biased adoption by researchers in other labs,” the paper argues.

“Methods which are associated with greater success in academic careers will, other things being equal, tend to spread.”

A “replication crisis” in science, in which researchers are not able to reproduce others’ results, has been blamed on a number of types of “bad science”, including a reluctance to double-check findings and statistical manipulations to get a publishable result.  

This latest paper focuses on the problem of statistically underpowered studies: using too few subjects in an experiment for the results to be reliable.

It found that statistical power in the social and behavioural sciences has not improved since the first warnings of underpowered experiments in the early 1960s.

“Statistical power is quite low”, found "The natural selection of bad science", published in Royal Society Open Science, and “more importantly, statistical power shows no sign of increase over six decades”.

“The data are far from a complete picture of any given field or of the social and behavioural sciences more generally, but they help explain why false discoveries appear to be common,” it says.

Last year, an attempt to reproduce 100 prominent psychology papers found that only about a third managed to replicate statistically significant results.

david.matthews@tesglobal.com

You've reached your article limit

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Featured Jobs

PhD Scholar in Medicine

University Of Queensland

Manager, Research Systems and Performance

Auckland University Of Technology

Lecturer in Aboriginal Allied Health

University Of South Australia

Lecturer, School of Nursing & Midwifery

Western Sydney University

College General Manager, SHE

La Trobe University
See all jobs

Most Viewed

Most Commented

Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford will host a homeopathy conference next month

Charity says Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford is ‘naive’ to hire out its premises for event

women leapfrog. Vintage

Robert MacIntosh and Kevin O’Gorman offer advice on climbing the career ladder

Woman pulling blind down over an eye
Liz Morrish reflects on why she chose to tackle the failings of the neoliberal academy from the outside
White cliffs of Dover

From Australia to Singapore, David Matthews and John Elmes weigh the pros and cons of likely destinations

Mitch Blunt illustration (23 March 2017)

Without more conservative perspectives in the academy, lawmakers will increasingly ignore and potentially defund social science, says Musa al-Gharbi