Garrett Hardin, an ecologist, published the influential Tragedy of the Commons essay in Science in 1968. Hardin defined the tragedy of the commons as the situation where common goods, such as a grazing land or clean water, will get overused by selfish individuals. Today we would call those people trolls. Hardin believed that the best way to limit the tragedy would be to give individuals ownership of common resources. Owners who would work to conserve their resources.
The tragedy of the commons is a useful philosophical tool to look at resource management. Unfortunately, Hardin used tragedy of the commons to focus on over-population. Hardin helped front a quasi-scientific movement in the 60s and 70s, including Paul Ehrlich, that focused on overpopulation. They made the rounds with pessimistic, hyperbole, the sky is falling rhetoric.
In Tragedy of the Commons, Hardin demonstrated an inherent conflict between the idea of building a society of the greatest good or one for the greatest number. The conflict arises from the mathematical fact that it’s impossible to maximize for two variables at once. Thus, enjoyment of life for some must come at the expense of others. Put another way, the assigning of calories for everyday life for everyone won’t leave enough calories for anyone to have any energy to create a life beyond necessity.
Hardin’s view leads to a stark, false, choice: recommend that we all become monks or start deciding who’s worthy enough to get extra calories. Hardin did the latter. He attacked the welfare state for causing over-population by providing food for the poor and criticized the UN Charter on Human Rights as immoral. He ended his essay by lamenting human’s desire for freedom and warned that humanity needs to be managed or all the newly born people would limit the wealth potential of those already maximizing society. A real, “it’s tough being the 1%” argument.
In 1974, Hardin expanded his views in Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor. Hardin argued that if the Earth’s a lifeboat then there aren’t enough necessities to go around. Success is zero-sum. Hardin pushed lifeboat ethics to justify restricting reproductive rights (eugenics), keeping excess food from countries that are in famine and limiting the free movement of immigrants. He argued that letting people suffer because of their geographic birth location is a moral obligation of all right minded people. A sort of white-man’s burden that doesn’t even pretend to help others. Hardin doesn’t describe how population controls should be enacted just that there should be an authority in place to do so.
To most modern readers, Hardin comes of as a bit of a monster. His beliefs feel like rebranded Social Darwinism, the “survival of the fittest.” Only the fittest in this case are the ones lucky enough to be born geographically close to food. I love how he assumes that the act of controlling population growth can be achieved without negative side effects such as riots or war. Side effects that are possibly as bad or worse than overpopulation.
Hardin offered a false dichotomy because, while it’s true that two variables can’t be maximized, both numbers can be a lot closer to whole than Hardin ever imagined. In the last fifty years, the world’s population has doubled and the average standard of living has increased (see UN Millennium Goals). In the more developed world, population growth has decreased without the need for population controls. Which suggests that the way to reduce population growth is to expand wealth, not force poor people around the world to be sterilized or be allowed to starve to death.
If the Earth’s a lifeboat, Hardin wanted to start killing the weak and unlucky with a year’s worth of food left. Which makes me wonder if he actually believed that choosing who had more worth was really a question of biology or simply an ex-post facto intellectual game to justify his beliefs on who deserves the world’s spoils.
Peer Review Is Broken
Introduction
Children are taught that science is a systemic way to find out truths about how the world functions. That view is too simplistic but for a non-obvious reason; scientific peer review is broken. Peer review issues include: too many false results, p-hacking, lack of experimental reproducibility, exclusion of null results, an eminence culture that silences new voices, publication bias and an increasing amount of fake scientific journals.
Statistical Manipulation
John Ioannidis, one of the most cited scientists in the world, is a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford. He is the founder of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS). In “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” Ioannidis found that “a research finding is less likely to be true when”:
the studies conducted in a field are smaller
when there is a greater number of tested relationships
where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes
when there is greater financial prejudice
when more teams are involved in a scientific field
His study found that, “in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims” (Ioannidis, 2005). In a later study published in JAMA, Ioannidis documented “p-hacking” by scientists attempting to show statistical significance of irrelevant findings (Belluz, 2016).
Lack of Reproducibility
Reproducibility is one of the key tenets of the scientific method but a lot of experiments can’t be reproduced. Nature admitted, “[t[here is growing alarm about results that cannot be reproduced.” They now track reproducibility as a separate tab on their website (Nature, 2016). The magazine surveyed over 1,500 scientists and found that “[m]ore than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments” (Baker, 2016).
Eminence Culture
Eminence is a title used by clergy and nobility. An eminent person is above question or reproach. Science all too often confers eminence upon a prestigious scientist. Eminent scientists have the power to determine what is accepted by the scientific community as truth. Economists measured the relationship between eminent scientists and scientific paper publication counts. The economists “examin[ed] entry rates into the fields of 452 academic life scientists who pass[ed] away while at the peak of their scientific abilities.” The economists found that, “the flow of articles by collaborators into affected fields decreases precipitously after the death of a star scientist. In contrast, we find that the flow of articles by non-collaborators increases by 8% on average.”
After the loss of a leading light, insiders stopped publishing as many papers and a slew of new scientists managed to get their papers published. Not only were new scientists able to publish but their papers were “disproportionately likely to be highly cited.” These new papers were “more likely to be authored by scientists who were not previously active in the deceased superstar's field.” The authors conclude that “outsiders are reluctant to challenge leadership within a field when the star is alive. [T]hese results paint a picture of scientific fields as scholarly guilds to which elite scientists can regulate access, providing them with outsized opportunities to shape the direction of scientific advance in that space” (Azoulay, 2015). Other evidence of eminence culture comes from the increasing acknowledgement that young scientists have a hard time getting grants to do research (Mulhere, 2015).
Publication Bias
Publication bias is how the outcome of a study impacts the likelihood that a paper will get published. When an experiment returns a result that is outside of expectations, it is considered a null result. Null results are rarely published. These negative test results are just as valid, per the scientific method, as an expected result (Song, 2013). Publication bias is incredibly important with the rise of meta-analysis studies. Meta-analysis is only as good as the data. Without null results, meta-analysis studies will not be able to paint a true picture of the dataset being studied (Kicinski, 2015).
Publication bias also leads to the decline effect. First observed in the 1930’s, “[m]any scientifically discovered effects published in the literature seem to diminish with time.” The lack of unpublished null results is one of the key reasons the decline is believed to be observed (Schooler, 2011).
Fake Scientific Journals
In a publish or die world, many scientists will pay several hundred dollars for an article to get published. Fee based journals don’t offer any (or minimal) peer review and quick publishing timelines. They are known as “predatory publishers” because they often hurt sincere scientists who accidentally submit to them. A site that tracks these journals shows that their number has been growing exponentially; there were 23 in 2012 and 923 in 2016 (Beal, 2016). Predatory journals published 420,000 articles in 2014 (Straumsheim, 2015).
Conclusion
In scientific papers, it is now possible to claim almost anything. Scientific papers can no longer be accepted prima facie meaningful. The public’s rejection of climate change, acceptance of a flat earth or denial of evolution is made tougher to dispute by science’s failure to police itself.
References
Azoulay, Pierre, Christian, F., Joshua, S. Graff, Zivin, “Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time?,” National Bureau of Economic Research, 2015, http://www.nber.org/papers/w21788
Baker, Monya, “1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility,” Nature, 2016, http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970
Beal, Jeffery, “Beal’s List of Predatory Publishers 2016," https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/05/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2016/
Belluz, Julia, “An unhealthy obsession with p-values is ruining science,” Vox, 2016, http://www.vox.com/2016/3/15/11225162/p-value-simple-definition-hacking
“Challenges in irreproducible research,” Nature, retrieved 12/7/2016, http://www.nature.com/news/reproducibility-1.17552)
Ioannidis, John, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” PLOS Medicine, 2005, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
Kicinski, Michal et al, “Publication bias in meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews,” Wiley Online Library, 2015, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/sim.6525
Mulhere, Kaitlin, “Freezing Out Young Scientists,” Inside Higher Ed, 2015, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/01/07/share-research-funding-going-young-scientists-declining
Song, F, Hooper, L, Loke, YK, “Publication bias: what is it? How do we measure it? How do we avoid it?,” Dovepress, 2013, https://www.dovepress.com/publication-bias-what-is-it-how-do-we-measure-it-how-do-we-avoid-it-peer-reviewed-article-OAJCT
Schooler, Jonathan, ”Unpublished results hide the decline effect,” Nature, 2011, http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110223/full/470437a.html
Straumsheim, Carl, “Predatory' Publishing Up,” Inside Higher Ed, 2015, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/10/01/study-finds-huge-increase-articles-published-predatory-journals In philosophy of science