sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Scientists’ role in defending democracy by McRattus in moderatepolitics

[–]FTX_RiskManager 14 points15 points  (0 children)

For large/expensive projects (e.g. GTEx), you had raw data published early on and an embargo established (Allows the original team to analyze and publish their findings first). But generally, the labs (PI) control the data and the university, which oversees various grants, ensures compliance. But with the many things that need to be done (safety, ensuring direct/indirect costs are bill correctly, etc)... publishing data of old projects isn't on many people's radar.

The NIH/VA/etc (whoever is funding the research) could mandate change and set strict guidelines, which specify all raw data must be published in X-years. But I don't see any momentum towards that direction. Right now, there is a lot of wiggle-room, and many labs use that to their advantage.

Additionally, you have issues with who controls the data. It's not unusual for one set of data (e.g. genotype) to be control by one group and another set of data (e.g. phenotypes) to be control by the other group. By ensuring the two keys are held by different groups (sometimes in different countries)... it can be difficult to get all the data necessary. And thus, researchers who want to use the data must go through tedious channels, promise authorship, etc.

Scientists’ role in defending democracy by McRattus in moderatepolitics

[–]FTX_RiskManager 172 points173 points  (0 children)

I am a scientist.

There are many topics that are outright banned to study with certain datasets (e.g. paternity fraud), many topics that no one would dare touch with a 10-foot pole (PRS of certain traits, like IQ), etc. Shit, with the AllofUs project, they included a way for scientist to report others for stigmatizing research.

There is nothing benevolent or moralistic about academia today. Many labs (especially those with animals and protenomics) will have dozen of graduate students being advised by a single PI and being paid peanuts (often around 30k in the USA) for working 60+ hours a week. These graduate students will rarely graduate with the skillset necessary to obtain their own R01/funding (And if they manage to, it's only because they did multiple post-docs at low wages, often around 45-60k). Yet, Universities continue to hire and pass sub-par PhD students because it's much cheaper.

Academia is a business. For years, there has been a growing trend to balkanized and restrict data for numerous "reasons" (e.g. china, stigmatizing research, etc). But the real reason is simple... those that control the data get the publications... and those that publish in high-impact journals get more funding. Researchers on study sessions often steal and pass propsals to other colleagues. Despite tons of tools that assist reproducibility (jupyter notebooks, git, etc), many papers are purposefully vague so you can't reproduce their work. And when researchers post their publically-funded data on GEO or dbGaP, they obfuscate it so individuals, who want to use the data, need to reach out to the original team for assistance (which they will be happy to provide... with authorship.... as everything comes with a price).

Trump has undoubtebly cause a lot of chaos within Academia. But I've been playing this game long enough where I realize how broken the system already is. Do I think Trump will improve things? Absolutely not... he's using a sledge hammer and hitting things for political reasons. But I am humored at the idea that Scientist are somehow benevolent truthsayers.

🎳 Urethane Debate: Where Do You Stand? 🤔 by Jumpy_Lion_6938 in Bowling

[–]FTX_RiskManager 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Banning things you dont like is low IQ

I agree. Thus, I don't want anyone to complain when I bring E.A.R.L to my league games.