Some might say "that's bleak, Gid", to which I'd reply that there's been tons of fraud during COVID-19 and it's probably killed people and the scientific community still treats the whole thing as some sort of vague non-issue So yeh, bleak
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
It is not. Afaik in Germany you have the same pressure. Most of the funding in research is by so-called "drittmittel" where you have to be approved mostly by your papers and what new results you expect. Infependent Research is heavily underfunded.
End of conversation
-
-
-
Even in an ideal situation (everyone is honest) people do make mistakes, are biased, etc. Extracting signal from noise takes time (think adverse effects). So, from my perspective it’s inevitable that views and recommendations do change over time. What’s disappointing is that…
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
There is no honor in being second. Imagine a scientist who only redoes the published new processes to prove or disprove. She would go unnoticed. I always thought it be a good idea to have a not yet recreated on papers as long as they aren't.
-
Label it is.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Where there is a will there is a way. Agree we need a mechanism, and it should not be difficult. Like rob a bank, if success take the money and fail give back the money, lots of people will try.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I believe that the WHO refusing to release the minutes of the meeting when they recommend against Ivermectin to be fraud. Also refusing to say who paid for the McMaster research used.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.