How science works

[Scarface]

---

Science is Competitive

Publish Or Perish Environment

Scientists work in a publish or perish environment. All scientists must conduct new and original research and publish the results regularly in order to keep their jobs, get raises, or be eligible for promotions. Scientists are constantly looking for new things to research.

Coming up with new research projects is extremely difficult. If a scientist must publish 2 or 3 articles a year and it takes 3 to 6 years to get each article, the scientist and his students must have 6 to 12 projects going at all times.


So it's all about keeping their jobs and justifying their funding?

[chasm]

So it's all about keeping their jobs and justifying their funding?

Are you sure you aren't talking about the church?

[theVOID]

So it's all about keeping their jobs and justifying their funding?

To an extent, there isn't enough funding to keep all scientists employed just so they can do routine science, it's a competitive industry that is absolutely depended on results - Unlucky for you is the reality that false-ideas don't yield productive results, so by your very own pointing out the competition you have underlined the necessity for scientists to produce results that are as accurate as possible - IE ones that can be turned into products or ideas that contribute in an active way to a given field.

A scientists reputation is based on the results they have obtained and their lack of egregious error, this is one of the most important factors of modern science, it makes it a very accurate, through, practical and result-driven field. If a science cannot at the least maintain these basic criteria their chances for getting the work they want in the field is greatly diminished.

[Scarface]

So it's about competition between scientists?

[theVOID]

No, that's just one of many factors that are involved, and stems from the fundamental problem that causes car companies to want to be better than each other, food producers to be more efficient, teachers to get the best lessons for their students etc. There are a limited number of resources (money, manpower, labtime) and as such the best way to dish out these resources are by giving them to the best scientists (in terms of efficiency, reliability and their track record for producing results) and as such you see a great deal of competition between scientists who need to compete over these resources.

[Scarface]

Well Adrian's link said that scientists are constantly looking for research to do in order to justify their funding, or words to that effect. Not unlike a quango.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Can anyone explain, in their own words (no links), and as simply as possible, how the scientific process (method) works, including peer review. And if you can, explain the history of the scientific method.

My understanding (in very simplistic terms) is...

1. Things! --> 2. hypothosis about how things work --> 3. Tests!, if fail, goto 2. if Success, goto 4. --> 4. Peer Review!, Fail?/Success?, if fail, goto 2. if Success, goto 5. --> 5. Hypothosis is now a Theory!, if counterevidence is presented, goto 2.

[Scarface]

Sounds rather primitive.

[theVOID]

Well Adrian's link said that scientists are constantly looking for research to do in order to justify their funding, or words to that effect. Not unlike a quango.

It's more like this:

1) funding organisation (government, university, hospital, private enterprise etc...) has limited funds. enough for only one large scale study.

2) Research group A and B both want that funding, as such they need to present a solid reason for their project to receive funding.

3) The Funding Organisation considers the proposal, it's possible applications and contributive value, the track record of the scientists in terms of efficiency, results and reliability.

4) The most successful group in satisfying this criteria gets the grant and has justified their funding, the other group must seek funding elsewhere.

[Scarface]

So it's about politics?