[autoexec]

> Objectivity and honesty can be hard to find if all someone cares about is their reputation as a competent researcher or climbing the ladder.

It seems like destroying the reputation and career of people who fake science would be a great start. If you're willing to fake data and lie to get results, there will always be an industry who'd love to hire you no matter how tarnished your reputation is. We need a better means to hold researchers accountable and we need to stop putting any amount of faith in any research that hasn't been independently verified through replication.

Today the lobby for orange juice manufactures can pay a scientist to fake research which shows that drinking orange juice makes you more attractive, and then pay publications to broadcast that headline to the world to increase sales. We should have some means to hold publications responsible for this as well.

[cutemonster]

> destroying the reputation and career of people who fake science would be a great start

When so many reports are faulty and fraudulent, that might instead be the great start of destroying the careers of those who would have revealed the fraudulent research?

I wonder what'd happen if researchers got compensated and funding based on other things, unrelated to papers published. But what would that be

[eru]

> I wonder what'd happen if researchers got compensated and funding based on other things, unrelated to papers published. But what would that be

See what they do in the parts of industry where they need their research to work.

Eg how do battery manufacturers compensate and incentives their researchers that are aiming to improve various characteristics of batteries? How do steel mills manage and reward their metallurgists? How does Intel's research work?

[cutemonster]

Aha, so they get paid the same, regardless of if their research works or not. And possibly some bonuses if things go well for the company? And if they all the time do nothing useful and manipulate data, they get fired?

But that's different from a PhD student -- they're not embedded in any organization that would notice if the research works or not?

Maybe if the universities partnered somehow with different companies, and the researchers got extra compensation if a company decided to make real world use of the research?

(On top of some base salary)

But who would determine if a company had made use of a certain research paper? What would the company gain, by keeping track and reporting back? Maybe more good research

(but I'd guess few companies would be that much forward-looking?)

[eru]

> Aha, so they get paid the same, regardless of if their research works or not.

I don't know. Is that speculation on your part, or something you figured out?

> But who would determine if a company had made use of a certain research paper? What would the company gain, by keeping track and reporting back? Maybe more good research

> (but I'd guess few companies would be that much forward-looking?)

That's why I am saying we should look what real companies are actually doing already in reality. We might have to leave our armchairs for that.

[cutemonster]

> Is that speculation on your part, or something you figured out

That's just normal monthly wages, how things usually work.

> look what real companies are actually doing already

But you can't look at what companies are doing now, to find out if new research is useful? The companies can't yet have started doing the things that any new & good research enables (since it wasn't known before).

Could take years until they make use of the research

(But maybe you meant something else)

[eru]

I mean look at what companies have been doing in the past to organise and incentivise research, and see what worked.

Look at what processes worked (and didn't work!). Not at what specific inventions worked.