How gamblers can save science

A suggestion to segregate good science from bad science

September 11, 2018 12:15 am | Updated 12:16 am IST

Scientific journals are often considered to be the voice of experts in many fields of science today. But just how reliable are the studies published in the world’s top scientific journals? A major crisis in the scientific world is that the results of most academic studies, including the peer-reviewed ones, do not replicate properly. This is popularly known as the replication, or reproducibility, crisis. The failure of scientific results to replicate suggests that these studies are quite unreliable even though they have the stamp of approval from academic experts. Many critics of the scientific establishment have even blamed the nature of academia, which they liken to a medieval guild dominated by a small group of elites calling the shots, for this crisis.

If the process of academic peer-review cannot be trusted to produce reliable science, what are the alternatives? “Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015,” a 2018 paper by Colin Camerer and others, has found that prediction markets can do a remarkable job when it comes to segregating good science from bad science. A prediction market is any form of open market where people with money are free to bet on various scientific studies. It is believed that such a market could be particularly helpful in saving unpopular scientific ideas. A rebel scientist, for instance, could sell shares in his unpopular idea that has been rejected by universities to interested investors. Investors who bet on such unpopular research could make big bucks if their predictions come true. And if the results of the study are to be believed, investors get things right more often than academics.

Camerer et al tried to replicate the findings of 21 studies published in the world’s top two scientific journals — Nature and Science . They found that 13 out of the 21 studies, or 62% of the results, could be replicated.

At the same time, they allowed 206 volunteers to bet on the chances of replicability of the same group of studies. If they were right about their predictions, these volunteers were set to gain money from their bets. To their surprise, the researchers found that this group of volunteers looking to make money also predicted that the results of 63% of the studies would be replicable.

So, according to these findings, getting people to put their money where their mouth is could turn out to be a pretty good way to save science.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.