QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

First published online December 21, 2005
doi: 10.1242/10.1242/jcs.02764

This Article Figures Only Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Caveman, C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Caveman, C. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Selecting against hypotheses

Dear Jabberwock,

Thank you for a most insightful and amusing Sticky Wicket (J. Cell Sci. 118, 4075-4076). I agree that there is much evidence regarding the potential "death of the hypothesis" and wonder if the selection methods being applied to so-called Emerging Cell Biologists (ECBs) might be somewhat responsible. There is an obvious pressure to publish in quantity, and it is clear that generating observational papers is more rapid than those difficult (but important) functional ones. Given that many grant reviewers and tenure committees often appear to judge applicants by weighing CVs, this would seem to select against `hypothesis testing'. Additionally, the risks of hypothesis testing are greater for those on the tenure track than those who are well established, as it is safe to say that the majority of hypotheses are disproven (if tested thoroughly, rather than supported by observations). It is ironic that those in perhaps the most creative phase of their careers have to balance big risky projects with more `safe' observational work. Furthermore, the acceptance of controversial ideas (or papers) by journals from ECBs is likely to be resisted by the established in the field whose ideas are being challenged - yet more disincentive to do hypothesis testing.

View larger version (48K): [in this window] [in a new window]

Sincerely

Caledonian Caveman

Dear Cal-the-Caveman,

Indeed, the unnat ural selection of ECMs by quantity as opposed to quality is a serious problem for the survival of the hypot hesis. In fact, I think it has some of the hallmarks of an infectious disease. Despite swallowing many herb al remedies and alternative potions, I still find myself flicking to the CV page of a grant before reviewin g it properly. However, there is always hope. I believe we should fight to retain the person-to-person `sit e visit' and tenure interview systems, and to extend these where we can. These sorts of mechanisms might no t allow us to depose those ECBs with fat CVs, but they do offer the opportunity to identify the real scient ists and support them.

Jabberwock

Footnotes

[name and address supplied]

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This Article Figures Only Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Caveman, C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Caveman, C. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?