The Natural Selection of Bad Science

TL;DR

This paper argues that the persistence of poor scientific methods is driven by structural incentives favoring publication over discovery, leading to the natural selection of bad science, supported by empirical data and computational models.

Contribution

It introduces a dynamic model demonstrating how publication incentives promote the spread of poor research practices and suggests institutional reforms to improve scientific quality.

Findings

Statistical power in behavioral sciences has not improved over 60 years.

Selection for high output in labs leads to poorer research methods.

Replication slows but does not prevent methodological deterioration.

Abstract

Poor research design and data analysis encourage false-positive findings. Such poor methods persist despite perennial calls for improvement, suggesting that they result from something more than just misunderstanding. The persistence of poor methods results partly from incentives that favor them, leading to the natural selection of bad science. This dynamic requires no conscious strategizing---no deliberate cheating nor loafing---by scientists, only that publication is a principle factor for career advancement. Some normative methods of analysis have almost certainly been selected to further publication instead of discovery. In order to improve the culture of science, a shift must be made away from correcting misunderstandings and towards rewarding understanding. We support this argument with empirical evidence and computational modeling. We first present a 60-year meta-analysis of statistical power in the behavioral sciences and show that power has not improved despite repeated demonstrations of the necessity of increasing power. To demonstrate the logical consequences of structural incentives, we then present a dynamic model of scientific communities in which competing laboratories investigate novel or previously published hypotheses using culturally transmitted research methods. As in the real world, successful labs produce more "progeny", such that their methods are more often copied and their students are more likely to start labs of their own. Selection for high output leads to poorer methods and increasingly high false discovery rates. We additionally show that replication slows but does not stop the process of methodological deterioration. Improving the quality of research requires change at the institutional level.