Metascience, also referred to as the “science of science,” is the systematic study of scientific methods and practices. It aims at evaluating and improving the processes, thus sharpening the goal of arriving at objective truths.
Nature, origin, and evolution of metascience
Science, a study of the natural world, is based on features like empirical evidence, systemic inquiry, testability, reproducibility, falsifiability, and self-correction. They distinguish it from other fields of inquiry, like philosophy. However, since scientists are humans, they often fall prey to methodological limitations, cognitive biases, and institutional and peer pressures. These loopholes affect the scientific enterprise’s ability to self-correct, leading scientists to analyze scientific practices. The emerging field of inquiry acknowledges that science can be improved by engaging with its practical challenges.
Metascience as a system of inquiry started in the 1960s when scientists began to worry about the credibility of scientific publications. In the twenty-first century, the efforts intensified, particularly in response to replication failures in various scientific disciplines. While some academics study metascience only, others choose specific lines of metascience inquiry focusing on their primary fields of scientific expertise. Thus, it can be seen as a step by scientists to live up to the expectations of an objective practice.
Scientific missteps
Scientists engaging in metascience have found patterns in scientific research that negatively impact science, such as the following.
- Scientific papers can have issues with research methods, reporting, and interpretations being biased toward obtaining pre-decided results or premeditated theories.
- There is evidence of scientists knowingly conducting fraud or tweaking statistical tests to justify their preferred theories or techniques.
- Scientific results may sometimes not be testable or reproducible, challenging their findings.
- The presently accepted norms of the scientific reporting processes may also have flaws.
- The methods by which scientific careers are decided may also be biased toward specific groups of scientists.
- Factors other than improving science may influence scientific funding-related decisions.
The prospective flaws question the stability of the scientific process. Metascience can help scientists correct them because the first step is to acknowledge the flaws. Moreover, metascience not only informs scientists of potential loopholes in specific methods but also points out how biases creep into them and suggests alternatives. The “replication crisis” highlights one such effort. It points to a large number of scientific studies whose results could not be replicated, and the number of such studies increasing over the years. If left unchecked, the crisis would leave a hole in science’s claim of reaching objective truths. So, the method of preregistering scientific studies was introduced. It involves publicly documenting research plans, including hypotheses, methods, and analysis plans, before collecting data. It promotes transparency and accountability.
Structural factors within the academic ecosystem also affect research integrity. The conventions of scholarly publishing may influence scientists’ conduct, scientific funding, and the prominence of scientific goals. Institutional and political considerations and hierarchies may particularly disadvantage early-career researchers and those from marginalized communities. Moreover, the academic reward system prioritizes publication volume and citation metrics, and metascience studies have found that the system leads to biases in academic funding, hiring, and promotions. Studies have also found that it could be leading to a stagnation of breakthrough research, prompting debates about whether the existing system adequately fosters innovation or discourages it.
Reforms with caution
Metascience can lead to reform in scientific practices as scientists implement measures to improve them. However, some scientists have also called for caution in over-interpreting metascience, especially flagging tendencies such as those below.
- Some scientists engaging in metascience have sometimes rejected criticisms of alternative scientific methods they have proposed.
- Some have assumed a dismissive tone towards scientists on social media altogether, even though online debates and forums lack adequate representation and nuance.
- Some scientists have occasionally amplified the role of the replication crisis, which by itself does not signify or summarise the problems in scientific research practices.
- Metascience studies have clubbed scientific disciplines while pointing out flaws in the practices, even as the nature and standards of different scientific disciplines are inherently different.
Such tendencies may downplay the role of scientific thinking in the public imagination. Alternate ways to build public trust in science, like science journalism, can strike a balance.
In conclusion, metascience offers a window to scrutinize potential flaws underlying scientific research. By identifying shortcomings and advocating for evidence-based reforms, metascience can constructively contribute to the scientific ecosystem. At the same time, what metascience studies imply collectively and how practitioners interpret them are not without debate. These debates highlight the limits of objective reality and the role of subjective interpretations in science. A constructive dialogue between scientists who study metascience and researchers who do not is crucial to ensure science remains on the path of self-correction.
References
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
- https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao0185
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264
- https://doi.org/10.1038/515009a
- https://doi.org/10.36850/mr4
- https://doi.org/10.21827/648c59a2087f2
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005468
- https://doi.org/10.1126/science.361.6408.1178
- https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav4758
- https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2016.0223
- How a Sharp-Eyed Scientist Became Biology’s Image Detective (The New Yorker)
Disclaimer: I used AI to generate the header image and lightly edit a couple of sentences in the text.
Debdutta Paul 