Who Is Driving the Science Bus?
A scientist seeks to conceal government-funded results, and ends up doing more damage
There’s a reason scientists have such strong incentives to publish, to establish their place in a priority system based largely on who was first, best, or last at making important research findings. Economist Paula Stephan covered this in an interview I did with her in 2012:
Knowledge has properties of what economists call a public good: once made public, people can’t be excluded from its use and it is not used up in the act of use (non-rivalrous). Economists have gone to considerable effort to show that the market does a poor job providing items with such characteristics. That’s where priority comes in: the only way that a scientist can establish priority of discovery is to make his (her) findings public. Or, stated differently, the only way to make it yours is to give it away. Priority “solves” the public good problem, providing a strong incentive for scientists to share their discoveries. The upside is that priority encourages the production and sharing of research. There are other positives — one relates to the fact that it is virtually impossible to reward people in science for effort since it’s virtually impossible to monitor scientists. The priority system solves this, rewarding people for achievement rather than effort. Priority also discourages shirking — knowing that multiple discoveries of the same finding are somewhat commonplace leads scientists to exert effort.
The system is imperfect, but perhaps the best possible — because like trust, prestige can be gained or lost. And this can lead to strange behaviors.
This issue arises via a recent bizarre story in the New York Times about a study of puberty blockers in adolescents. Now, we can see this topic through a lens not only of prestige, but through the prism of open science, OA, and the role of funders.
Basically, it appears the PI involved (Johanna Olson-Kennedy) is unwilling to publish the results of a $6 million federal grant because the hypothesis has not been borne out by the data. Instead, she has fallen back on blaming the current political environment — with gender dysphoria a flashpoint for right-wing extremists — for making it imprudent for her results to be released.