Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_ir0fs1v wrote

Reply to comment by fish_whisperer in An obscure family of viruses, already endemic in wild African primates and known to cause fatal Ebola-like symptoms in some monkeys, is “poised for spillover” to humans, according to a new research by giuliomagnifico

[removed]

−11

fish_whisperer t1_ir0g3m2 wrote

Honestly? Close to zero. That’s not at all how academic research works. People don’t go to school for decades to become experts in a field and capable of doing this kind of research just to follow social media trends.

43

[deleted] t1_ir11a78 wrote

[removed]

−3

[deleted] t1_ir11ejo wrote

[removed]

4

[deleted] t1_ir11izu wrote

[removed]

−4

[deleted] t1_ir11zah wrote

[removed]

3

estoka t1_ir16uzk wrote

So the mantra that we've been hearing for the last decade of publish or perish, no longer seems to be applicable? Research is not dictated by popular interests and a need to funding? Interesting.

−8

AppealDouble t1_ir1hzh2 wrote

I think you’ll find that articles like these are simply more likely to make headlines now that the world has experienced 2 international human epidemics in 2 years and the fact that this has been a terrible year for avian flu.

15

HambdenRose t1_ir1k9av wrote

They are publishing but not in the most publicly prominent places. They are publishing in journals that other scientists with similar interests will be reviewing and reading. Most journal articles don't catch the attention of the public.

9

hesperidium-rex t1_ir1yhfx wrote

"Publish" means in scientific journals, not on websites. And the mechanisms for funding are incredibly complicated. Research needs to be funded, but what kinds of research is prioritized often depends on the priorities of whoever is funding it - which is rarely the general public. On top of that, many funds are earmarked specifically for certain kinds of research, any many projects are long-lasting endeavours whose funding carries over years or decades.

So putting out an article that makes the public panic is far from sufficient to get a research grant. To do that, you have to convince the funding agency that you have a project that addresses a specific need of theirs, and you're capable of pulling it off.

7

MukdenMan t1_ir1i4f7 wrote

Researchers don’t do that. People who write articles pick up on actual research and then spin it for an article (although obviously there are good articles written for the general public too).

8

estoka t1_ir1iskc wrote

Really? I didn't think it was a stretch after everything this woman has found:

https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/how-a-sharp-eyed-scientist-became-biologys-image-detective

Or this individual :

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-31/on-the-trail-of-dodgy-academic-research/100788052

Or most of psychology:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/08/27/642218377/in-psychology-and-other-social-sciences-many-studies-fail-the-reproducibility-te

Edit: This is one of my current favorites:

https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease

−6

MukdenMan t1_ir1jmv0 wrote

You didn’t ask if there is misconduct in research (obviously there is). You asked if people are pumping out papers “like this” (implying the paper in the link above is clickbait) because it is good for publicity. The publicity comes from people who write articles for popular media.

In this case, this is just being publicized by a university because it is good for their reputation. CU is not engaged in “clickbait.”

“The authors stress that another pandemic is not imminent, and the public need not be alarmed.” At best you could say that the headline could cause people to draw the wrong conclusions, but the article and the paper it is discussing aren’t an issue.

11

estoka t1_ir1v7as wrote

What I'm saying, by referencing academic misconduct, is that people are willing to go to extreme lengths in order to remain relevant and employed. Why is it such a stretch of the imagination that research budgets would be motivated by public interest? Especially if said research is based on government funding. Sorry I wasn't more clear.

−1