Thinking about Science: Good Science, Bad Science, and How to Make It Better

A riveting exploration of the world of science, diving headfirst into its triumphs and tribulations.

Penned by seasoned microbiologists Ferric C. Fang and Arturo Casadevall, this book offers a comprehensive analysis of the scientific enterprise through various lenses, including historical, philosophical, and personal.

From their unique vantage points as researchers, clinicians, and educators, Fang and Casadevall dissect the intricate mechanisms of science, shedding light on its strengths and weaknesses. Through engaging historical anecdotes, personal narratives, and insightful academic studies, they present a candid evaluation of science's performance, including a thought-provoking examination of its role during the COVID-19 pandemic.

But Thinking about Science goes beyond merely reflecting on the past and present—it offers a bold prescription for the future. As humanity grapples with monumental challenges, this book underscores the pivotal role science must play in navigating these uncharted territories.

A must-read for anyone curious about the present predicaments and future potential of science, Thinking about Science: Good Science, Bad Science, and How to Make It Better is more than just a book; it's a roadmap to understanding and improving the scientific endeavor for the benefit of society at large.

Ferric C. Fang and Arturo Casadevall are physician-scientists and journal editors who have studied infectious diseases for more than three decades and have a longstanding interest in the culture and sociology of science. Dr. Fang is presently a Professor in the Departments of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Microbiology, Medicine, and Global Health at the University of Washington School of Medicine, and Dr. Casadevall is presently a Bloomberg Distinguished Professor in the Johns Hopkins Schools of Public Health and Medicine.

Preface

Acknowledgments

About the Authors

List of Boxes, Figures, and Tables

DEFINITIONS OF SCIENCE

1. What Is Science? We discuss the epistemological origins of science; features of the scientific method; and characteristics to distinguish science from intuition, belief, or pseudoscience.

2. Descriptive Science We argue that although “descriptive” is an adjective often used pejoratively, description plays a vital role in science and is essential for the generation and testing of hypotheses.

3. Mechanistic Science We explain that the adjective “mechanistic” is often applied to explanatory science, but its meaning is relative.

4. Reductionistic and Holistic Science We show that reductionism and holism are two ends of a scientific spectrum that are often viewed in opposition but are actually complementary and essential.

GOOD SCIENCE

5. Elegant Science We consider what scientists mean when they refer to an “elegant” idea or experiment and how the quest for elegance can mislead.

6. Rigorous Science We provide a how-to guide for performing rigorous research that produces reliable results.

7. Reproducible Science We explore why reproducibility is prized in science and why it is so elusive.

8. Important Science We propose criteria to assess whether a scientific finding or line of inquiry is important.

9. Historical Science We discuss why the history of a scientific discovery is important even though it may be neglected or distorted by scientists.

10. Specialized Science We examine the value and risk of specialization in science, reasons for the emergence of scientific fields, and the growing importance of interdisciplinary teams in contemporary research.

11. Revolutionary Science We ask what constitutes a revolution in science and consider whether revolutions truly replace older ideas or rather build upon them.

12. Translational Science We probe the interface between basic and applied research that translates into useful applications and question whether society can or should favor one type of science over the other.

13. Moonshot Science We review past and present major targeted investments in science akin to the moonshot program and the determinants of their success.

14. Serendipitous Science We consider the importance of undirected exploration and the many scientific discoveries that were wholly unanticipated.

BAD SCIENCE

15. Unequal Science We reflect on howscience is rife with inequality and inequity, but a diverse scientific workforce will be critically important for science’s future.

16. Pseudoscience We explain that the power of science to persuade has led some to mimic scientific methods and language in the service of false or misguided beliefs.

17. Duplicated Science We demonstrate that inappropriate image duplication resulting from sloppiness or misconduct is surprisingly common in the scientific literature.

18. Fraudulent Science We show that in addition to fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, a variety of poor research practices collectively undermine the reliability of the research enterprise and are symptomatic of a dysfunctional research culture in which incentives are misaligned with goals.

19. Dismal Science We argue that the economics of science comprises a complex web of incentives and disincentives, as scientists compete not only for funding and jobs, but also for prestige.

20. Competitive Science We consider that competition is conventionally viewed as a motivator for scientists but can have a negative impact on resource sharing, integrity, and creativity.

21. Prized Science We observe that prizes are highly sought in science but epitomize the winner-take-all economics of science that unfairly allocates credit and distorts scientific history.

22. Rejected Science We examine the essential role of peer review in science, which means that rejection of ideas, papers, and grant applications is commonplace.

23. Unfunded Science We conclude that a persistent imbalance between the research workforce and available resources has created a preoccupation with funding, a capricious peer review system, and researcher frustration, but there may be a solution.

24. Retracted Science We show how a study of retracted scientific publications can provide a window into the scientific enterprise and the underlying causes of fraud and error.

25. Erroneous Science We explain how the analysis of errors can play a vital role in identifying weaknesses in how science is done and how it can be improved.

26. Impacted Science We suggest that competition among scientists for funding and jobs has driven a preoccupation with prestigious publications and the highly flawed use of journal impact factor as a surrogate measure of publication quality.

27. Risky Science We consider the responsibility of scientists to safeguard society from potential hazards of research and whether some types of research should be off-limits, including a balanced examination of “gain-of-function” experiments in which microbes are enhanced to study a scientific question.

28. Authoritarian Science We review several examples that illustrate the danger of deference to authority in science.

29. Deplorable Science We review classic examples in which science was used in an immoral manner to identify their common features and highlight important concerns when considering human experimentation.

FUTURE SCIENCE

30. Plague Science We reflect on the triumphs and failures of science during the COVID-19 pandemic and why countries with the strongest research programs did not always fare the best.

31. Reforming Science We discuss the methodological, cultural, and structural reforms that the scientific enterprise should consider as it faces the future and attempts to make scientific results and the scientific literature more reliable.

AFTERWORD

32. Diseased Science We close by taking a lighthearted look at the foibles and afflictions of scientists.

References

Index