Karl Blirando’s Post

"Science is just an opinion." This is a statement often heard from people who dislike the outcomes of scientific research or research-based policymaking. Their discontent leads them to question the value of scientific research and, quite often, to discredit individual scientists as well. In their view, these scientists are politically and ideologically motivated, almost certainly funded by corrupt governments or organizations. This happens, for instance, to scientists studying climate change, but also to researchers in health sciences or cultural studies. Regardless of the specific accusations or the field of study, these critics no longer regard science as a neutral and objective producer of knowledge. Instead, they see science as a human undertaking that comes with all the flaws and challenges of any other human activity. Unfortunately, there is some truth to this perspective. Read Sjoerd Bakker's latest article to understand why and how this is reflected in today's post-truth society. #science #posttruth #posttruthpolitics

Top 10 U.S. research institutes in the Nature Index 2024: Check out the full list here

I don’t readily buy into what I call speculative science. Due to increasingly common privatized research for corporate profit aims, sometimes even ‘science’ can be for sale. Notably, questionable research results are sometimes publicly amplified if they favor the corporate product; and, conversely, accurate research results can be suppressed or ignored if they are unfavorable to business interests, even when involving human health. Also, mega-corporation lobbyists — especially those representing the huge and very powerful/influential pharmaceutical industry — tend to pull corpocratically orientated Western governments [especially those of Canada and the U.S.] by the nose. Once in power, established political parties will kowtow to big business’s threats of transferring or eliminating jobs and capital investment, thus economic stability, if corporate ‘requests’ aren’t accommodated. In any event, such lobbyist manipulation does not belong in any government body, such as Health Canada or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, that was established to protect consumers’ safety and health rather than big businesses’ insatiable profit goals. Interestingly, in regard to the integrity of scientific research, findings and commercialization, Prof. Eva Mendez, of Carlos III University of Madrid, was quoted in the May 29, 2023, edition of The Christian Science Monitor Weekly [Perspectives, Global Newsstand, El Pais/Madrid] as pointedly asking/stating: “How can a researcher publish a scientific study every 37 hours? … How can … universities and governments pay huge sums of money to get a researcher to change their affiliation? These are just some of the many questions I’ve been asked since EL PAIS reported on cases involving a lack of scientific integrity, in which Saudi Arabian universities paid large stipends to European academics to get them to swap their affiliations. ... “The issues of integrity and commercialization in the field of science — which we’re seeing today at an accelerated pace — are reflective of an outdated, ineffective and underfunded scientific system. … ‘Publish or perish’ has given rise to unethical conduct. … "To prevent the current system from sinking even further … researchers, institutions and other parties have to break the deadly cliques and commercialization within science.”

The University of Luxembourg has published its action plan for advancing research assessment, following its commitment to the international Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment signed one year ago. This plan outlines the university's approach to improving research assessment practices, in alignment with the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) principles. The focus is on qualitative judgement, peer review, and responsible use of quantitative indicators. This action reflects the #University's participation in a global movement towards enhancing the quality and impact of research. The development and implementation of this action plan have been overseen by Vice-Rector for Research, Prof. Simone P. Niclou, with Prof. Jens Kreisel appointing Prof. Anja Leist and Prof. Emma Schymanski as special advisors for Research Assessment and Open Science and Data Management, respectively. #uni_lu #Research

As the field of implementation science grapples with critical perspectives related to the relevance, feasibility, equity, and impact of implementation science methods, the use of research evidence field may provide models for how co-production and partnerships may advance equitable outcomes in systems and communities.

IQOE and GEOTRACES provide two examples from SCOR on the use of digital data platforms in this International Science Council report on science organizations in the digital age. https://lnkd.in/efiZsCZR

Congratulations to Prof Vernon Lee, Prof David Lye, Prof Leo Yee Sin and Assoc Prof Barnaby Young, for being recognised amongst the Clarivate Highly Cited Researchers 2024! The Clarivate list of Highly Cited Researchers recognises researchers who have demonstrated significant and broad influence in their field(s) of research. The Highly Cited Researchers list was selected based on multiple Highly Cited Papers™ that rank in the top 1% by citations for their field(s) and publication year in the Web of Science™ over the past decade, supplemented by qualitative analysis and expert judgement. Singapore ranks top 10 in 2024 by number of Highly Cited Researcher awards. NCID researchers are among the 108 researchers in Singapore and 6,636 researchers across 59 countries and regions receiving the recognition. Once again, congratulations to all recipients on your achievement! For more information on the Highly Cited Researchers 2024, visit https://lnkd.in/ePGXguxi. #HighlyCited2024

📚 Call for Book Publication FSH-PH Publications We are excited to invite authors, researchers, and experts to submit their manuscripts for book publication under the leadership of Prof. Froilan D. Mobo, DPA, PhD, LPT, CRP, CHRA, a multi-awarded researcher with SCOPUS-indexed publications and the Managing Director of FSH-PH Publications. FSH-PH Publications is committed to publishing innovative and impactful works that contribute to academic excellence and knowledge dissemination across various disciplines. Why Publish with FSH-PH Publications? Expert Guidance: Led by Prof. Froilan D. Mobo, an accomplished academic and research leader. Global Recognition: Expand your work’s reach with our robust distribution and indexing network. Diverse Disciplines: We welcome manuscripts in fields such as: Education and Social Sciences Business and Economics Health Sciences Arts and Humanities Natural and Physical Sciences Technology and Emerging Trends Submission Guidelines Manuscripts should be original, well-researched, and align with current academic or professional trends. Format: Books, Monographs, Edited Volumes, or Technical Guides Language: English How to Submit 📧 Email: [email protected] 🌐 Visit: https://lnkd.in/gS__QxPu

#LaurierResearch Clark, C. et al. (2023). Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(48). https://lnkd.in/gYtkuFzh Scientific censorship, often driven by scientists for self-protection and prosocial reasons, is a complex issue that requires more empirical study to understand its consequences and improve transparency in scientific decision-making. Laurier professor Anne Wilson and colleagues (2023) report that scientific censorship is often driven by prosocial concerns and scientists, with unknowns remaining about the topic. Research on censorship is typically done by scientists in nonprofits rather than peer-reviewed journals. There is a concern about growing censorship in science, with varying opinions on where to draw the line. The public's perception of harmfulness influences support for censorship. Moral motives and ideological motivations can lead to censorship, which may harm the credibility of scientific institutions. Improved transparency and data collection could help address censorship issues. They argue that the text discusses the need for policy changes to promote transparency in studying censorship and highlights the importance of cooperation from scientific institutions for future research in this area.

Working in a field where often rethorical eloquence and tradition or authority are guiding forces, I am glad to read this reminder: "The fundamental principle of science is that evidence — not authority, tradition, rhetorical eloquence, or social prestige — should triumph. This commitment makes science a radical force in society: challenging and disrupting sacred myths, cherished beliefs, and socially desirable narratives. Consequently, science exists in tension with other institutions, occasionally provoking hostility and censorship."