Australia’s scientific system is inefficient and requires investment. Current funding and promotion systems reward scientists who publish first, leading to rushed publications that contain errors, making them useless for society and the economy. Bureaucracy is a significant contributor to the inefficiency in science, with researchers spending many months applying for funding schemes that have low chances of success. Meta-science, a field that studies science, provides an opportunity to improve science through careful study. This includes developing more efficient systems of funding and hiring that reward quality over quantity, increasing transparency and data sharing, and designing processes that facilitate dynamic, diverse, and inclusive research teams. Investing in meta-science is crucial to improve the scientific system, and centres in many countries have already generated practical solutions to improve science. Finally, while Australia must fund environmental sciences, it is equally important to allocate funds to improve the environment for science.
Fixing the Inefficiency of Science Bureaucracy in Australia Should be a Funding Priority
The Australian government has started a conversation about the Science and Research Priorities of the country. However, instead of engaging in a two-way conversation, most scientific groups will likely demand more funding for their field. As these priorities are aimed at guiding investments, it is expected that this lobbying will be common.
One field that needs investment is meta-science, which studies science itself. According to Adrian Barnett, a meta-scientist, Australian science could be greatly improved. The scientific system globally, including in Australia, has become highly competitive, with researchers focused on publishing the most papers instead of producing high-quality work. The current funding and promotion systems reward those who publish first, but this often leads to rushed publications that contain errors, rendering them useless for society or the economy. The number of papers being retracted due to unreliable data is increasing, even in high-profile journals such as Nature and the Lancet.
Bureaucracy is a significant contributor to the inefficiency in science, with Australian researchers spending many months applying for funding schemes with low chances of success, creating a significant opportunity cost. In Australia, the slow approval systems make it challenging to keep up with the global big data revolution, leading to researchers opting for a slow or no data approach. For instance, a study on vaccine safety took five years of paperwork to acquire any data.
To improve the situation, Australia needs to invest more in the scientific sector, with a focus on reducing bureaucracy and increasing the quality of research. Allocating more funds to meta-science will be a step in the right direction, as it can help study and improve the scientific system. Additionally, promoting a shift in the publication culture towards quality research, rather than quantity, is essential. It is also vital to create funding schemes that are easier to apply for and have a higher chance of success, saving researchers time and resources. Finally, improving the approval systems for data collection can boost Australia’s contribution to the global big data revolution.
Meta-Science: Improving Science through Careful Study
Unlike other industries that invest heavily in quality improvement, science spends almost nothing in this area. Peer review and publishing processes are outdated, and traditional peer review systems struggle to keep up with the increase in journal submissions. University league tables and the Excellence in Research for Australia exercise, which supposedly measure quality, reinforce the incentive for scientists to prioritize quantity over quality.
Meta-science is an emerging field that provides an opportunity to improve science through careful study. This includes developing more efficient systems of funding and hiring that reward quality over quantity, increasing transparency and data sharing, and designing processes that facilitate dynamic, diverse, and inclusive research teams. Meta-science centres have been established in many countries, including the US National Science Foundation’s Science of Science programme, the UK Research and Innovation Caucus on Innovation and Research Funding Policy, the Volkswagen Foundation’s Researching Research programme, and the Research on Research Institute with headquarters in the UK.
Improving science is the greatest current challenge, despite the existential crisis of climate change. The issues in science are widespread and costly, and Australia needs funding to create a better environment for science. While environmental sciences must receive funding, it is crucial to allocate more funds to meta-science to study and improve the scientific system.
In summary, science has been slow to invest in quality improvement, and traditional peer review systems are struggling to keep up with the increase in journal submissions. However, meta-science offers an opportunity to improve science through careful study, which includes developing more efficient systems of funding and hiring, increasing transparency and data sharing, and designing processes that facilitate dynamic, diverse, and inclusive research teams. Investing in meta-science is crucial to improve the scientific system, and centres in many countries have already generated practical solutions to improve science. Finally, while Australia must fund environmental sciences, it is equally important to allocate funds to improve the environment for science.
Don’t miss interesting posts on Famousbio
