Science research is the unbiased, objective discovery of answers to questions of interest. Or is it? The pursuit of knowledge and discovery, academic as well as commercial can subject the researcher, and the results, to questionable validity. Problems in procedure or the conclusion can invalidate the entire research no matter how consequential it may be. Awareness of potential problems and methods of addressing them is necessary for a researcher to conduct a credible study with an acceptable result, in terms of validity and objectivity.
Methodoloy
Often problems in science research result from the methodology used in testing and analysis. The scientific method--techniques used to gather and analyze information and data in seeking answers to the phenomenon being questioned--provide means whereby others can repeat the study and compare results. When the inherent methodology is ignored, results can be misleading.
The results of the study can be influenced by the presence of the observer. This "observer effect" can be significant: is the behavior of the subject exactly as it would be had the observer not been present? The experimenter's inadvertent or deliberate interaction with the experiment may render the results questionable.
Failure to account for all steps required in formulating or validating will also lead to premature or poor conclusions. For example, you overlook negating the null hypothesis in a statistical analysis, which later is shown cannot be negated. The entire analysis and conclusion is now for naught, regardless of the strength of any positive outcomes in the experiment. Poor planning resulting in the use of bad procedures, bad data or bad analysis creates invalid results, cultivating distrust, criticism and even ridicule by others in the science community, media and public. Errors in computations, equations, even logic will result in invalid conclusions, negating the results of the experiment.
Influences
Influence outside the study can have derisive effects. Frank Gannon states in an EMBO Reports editorial, "I think that bullying is a pervasive problem in academic research and that scientists seem to accept it without further comment or disapproval as though it were a normal part of life." Bullying invalidates a study when the scientist is unduly influenced or coerced to alter or change the experimental technique, the results or the analysis. Bullying also occurs when a more senior scientist takes the study results of a junior as his or her own without credit.
Results-oriented methodologies seek to assure that a conclusion meets expectations. The scientist selects only those procedures that will validate predetermined or assumed conclusions and will ignore the scientific method and the results of any other study not supporting expectations. Results-oriented studies may be seeking funding, prestige or other standing as the ends to invalid experimental means.
Willful deceit by unscrupulous men, both in the lab and at administrative levels, or even those in positions of influence outside the organization, can turn a well-reasoned study into a circus, with misdirection the norm and shills directing attention to what is being shown and away from what needs to be seen. Chris Lee aptly stated in an ARS Technica article, "science is a competitive game and, as with any competitive game, there are unscrupulous competitors."
Validity
There are several activities that are commonly undertaken to support the goal of objectivity and validity in science research, though each is not without its own weaknesses. Peer review is one often used technique to determine the plausibility of a study. Other scientists check the methodology, procedures, results and conclusion for soundness and accuracy and submit their opinions accordingly, accepting or rejecting the study. Some problems resulting is the time it takes, the number of peers willing to conduct the review, theft, and rejection based on personal rather than scientific reasoning.
Publishing the results of an experiment invites analysis and critique from a wider community. Some publications require peer review for acceptance while the editorial board performs a similar function at other journals. One problem could lie within the scope of a particular publication: that is, whether the study be read by those qualified to analyze the results, and how the researchers will be notified of those conclusions. Also, being published in an obscure journal rarely read by peers is not validation of the study.
Collaboration among scientists provides some checks and balances in objective research, particularly if natural tendency toward competitiveness and secrecy can be put aside for the study. Oversight of the study by board, committee or academic peers will positively lend toward objectivity, if clear boundaries are established and scientists have the freedom to proceed accordingly.
Scientific research is not without its problems and criticisms. Thousands of years of published research, as seen in writings from ancient China and Egypt, have evolved criteria establishing objectivity and validity to the science community. In our media-oriented society, additional problems in public perception are created when studies are improperly reported, misinformation is printed or bias in the article lends to wrong conclusions by the public. Such an awareness will help the scientist in the effort to effectively self-govern research and product valid answers to those questions of interest.
Tags: competitive game, objectivity validity, objectivity validity science, questions interest, results experiment