<story><title>Psychology’s Replication Crisis Is Real</title><url>https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/11/psychologys-replication-crisis-real/576223/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>zorga</author><text>Wow, that&amp;#x27;s a clear sign science has become too political. Proving other scientists wrong used to be how careers were made, not something to fear.</text></item><item><author>seibelj</author><text>Even in hard sciences, there are papers that everyone in the niche knows is false, but fear to speak out about or publish a paper refuting it for fear of their career being damaged.&lt;p&gt;My wife is a biochemist, and during her PhD they were working on an area of research with a handful of labs publishing about it. One lab in particular was known for a decent amount of questionable publications, but the PI was a big deal and no one would officially question anything. So they would whisper amongst each other and just ignore that paper (and all the additional papers built on top of it) because they all knew it was bullshit.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>bchjam</author><text>&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Brouwer%E2%80%93Hilbert_controversy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Brouwer%E2%80%93Hilbert_contro...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Brouwer&amp;#x27;s career suffered as a consequence of his disagreements with Hilbert.&lt;p&gt;EDIT (with links to the political aspect):
Letters written more about the politics of publishing than the math itself are referenced in a book called &amp;quot;The War of the Frogs and the Mice&amp;quot; 
 (PDF) &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;citeseerx.ist.psu.edu&amp;#x2F;viewdoc&amp;#x2F;download?doi=10.1.1.224.368&amp;amp;rep=rep1&amp;amp;type=pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;citeseerx.ist.psu.edu&amp;#x2F;viewdoc&amp;#x2F;download?doi=10.1.1.224...&lt;/a&gt; (see bottom of pg 9 as displayed for the letter Brouwer wrote to Hilbert&amp;#x27;s wife)</text></comment>
<story><title>Psychology’s Replication Crisis Is Real</title><url>https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/11/psychologys-replication-crisis-real/576223/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>zorga</author><text>Wow, that&amp;#x27;s a clear sign science has become too political. Proving other scientists wrong used to be how careers were made, not something to fear.</text></item><item><author>seibelj</author><text>Even in hard sciences, there are papers that everyone in the niche knows is false, but fear to speak out about or publish a paper refuting it for fear of their career being damaged.&lt;p&gt;My wife is a biochemist, and during her PhD they were working on an area of research with a handful of labs publishing about it. One lab in particular was known for a decent amount of questionable publications, but the PI was a big deal and no one would officially question anything. So they would whisper amongst each other and just ignore that paper (and all the additional papers built on top of it) because they all knew it was bullshit.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>danharaj</author><text>Science has always been political, within itself and in relation to the rest of society.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Oil_drop_experiment&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Oil_drop_experiment&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>