Testing hypotheses…

1. Communicate about the process of science as well as the content [previous post]
2. Make research outputs available to all for free [previous post]
3. Publish negative results and unsuccessful experiments too. Sherlock Holmes knew that dogs that don’t bark can be as important as those that do. Science progresses as much through negative results as through positive, but it can be hard to get negative results published. This means that those outside of science are only able to see part of the picture. And it can also lead to duplication of effort by scientists themselves, testing ideas that have already been shown to be false.
4. Publish peer review comments with research outputs
5. Attach a summary for non-experts to research outputs
6. Make raw data available as early as possible
7. Use new technology to open research conferences to all

1. Communicate about the process of science as well as the content [previous post]
2. Make research outputs available to all for free. The cost of access to the scientific literature is barrier for many to engage directly with research, and this has the effect of making science appear as a closed world. People outside of the research community, even those that have a strong education in science, are not able to make their own judgements about controversial subjects, but have to rely on secondary sources. The publishing model for science is from the age of Gutenberg, but we are in the age of Berners-Lee. Of course the costs of publishing scientific research need to be paid for, but surely there is a better business model than ‘pay to access’, especially now that the costs of delivery (in electronic format) are so low?
3. Publish negative results and unsuccessful experiments too
4. Publish peer review comments with research outputs
5. Attach a summary for non-experts to research outputs
6. Make raw data available as early as possible
7. Use new technology to open research conferences to all

1. Communicate about the process of science as well as the content. Many of the controversies around science and its interface with society are really about the processes of science. But often the background is not well explained. Peer review should be explained clearly, covering both the formal and informal aspects, and being honest about the weaknesses as well as the strengths of the system. The ‘weight of evidence’ approach should be discussed as a real strength of science. So often our understanding of the world depends on the alignment of a large number of small pieces of evidence. None of these on the own are particularly compelling but taken together… And when one piece of evidence turns out to be in error it may only have a minor impact on the overall story. Finally, we need a wider understanding of Kuhn‘s Scientific Revolutions. Sometimes the lone voice is right and the consensus wrong, although history tells us that this doesn’t happen often.
2. Make research outputs available to all for free
3. Publish negative results and unsuccessful experiments too
4. Publish peer review comments with research outputs
5. Attach a summary for non-experts to research outputs
6. Make raw data available as early as possible
7. Use new technology to open research conferences to all

1. Communicate about the process of science as well as the content
2. Make research outputs available to all for free
3. Publish negative results and unsuccessful experiments too
4. Publish peer review comments with research outputs
5. Attach a summary for non-experts to research outputs
6. Make raw data available as early as possible
7. Use new technology to open research conferences to all

TBC