坏科学的自然选择
The Natural Selection of Bad Science
摘要：
糟糕的研究设计和数据分析会导致假阳性结果。尽管人们不断呼吁改进，但这些糟糕的方法仍然存在，这表明它们不仅仅是误解的结果。糟糕的方法之所以持续存在，部分原因在于对它们有利的激励，导致了糟糕科学的自然选择。这种动态不需要科学家有意识地制定战略-没有故意的欺骗或游手好闲-只有出版物是职业发展的一个主要因素。几乎可以肯定的是，一些规范性的分析方法已经被选择用于进一步的出版，而不是发现。为了改善科学文化，必须从纠正误解转向奖励理解。我们支持这一论点的经验证据和计算模型。我们首先提出了一个60年的荟萃分析的统计权力的行为科学，并表明，权力并没有改善，尽管一再证明的必要性，增加权力。为了证明结构性激励的逻辑后果，我们提出了一个动态的科学社区模型，在这个模型中，竞争的实验室使用文化传播的研究方法来研究新的或以前发表的假设。正如在现实世界中一样，成功的实验室会产生更多的“后代”，因此他们的方法更经常被复制，他们的学生更有可能建立自己的实验室。选择高输出导致较差的方法和越来越高的错误发现率。我们还表明，复制减慢，但不能阻止方法恶化的过程。提高研究质量需要在体制一级进行改革。
英文摘要：
Poor research design and data analysis encourage false-positive findings. Such poor methods persist despite perennial calls for improvement, suggesting that they result from something more than just misunderstanding. The persistence of poor methods results partly from incentives that favor them, leading to the natural selection of bad science. This dynamic requires no conscious strategizing---no deliberate cheating nor loafing---by scientists, only that publication is a principle factor for career advancement. Some normative methods of analysis have almost certainly been selected to further publication instead of discovery. In order to improve the culture of science, a shift must be made away from correcting misunderstandings and towards rewarding understanding. We support this argument with empirical evidence and computational modeling. We first present a 60-year meta-analysis of statistical power in the behavioral sciences and show that power has not improved despite repeated demonstrations of the necessity of increasing power. To demonstrate the logical consequences of structural incentives, we then present a dynamic model of scientific communities in which competing laboratories investigate novel or previously published hypotheses using culturally transmitted research methods. As in the real world, successful labs produce more "progeny", such that their methods are more often copied and their students are more likely to start labs of their own. Selection for high output leads to poorer methods and increasingly high false discovery rates. We additionally show that replication slows but does not stop the process of methodological deterioration. Improving the quality of research requires change at the institutional level.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
