Could Gambling Save Science

a thoughtful web.

Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking. Login or Take a Tour!

tallon · 4820 days ago

"The pace of scientific progress may be hindered by the tendency of our academic institutions to reward being popular, rather than being right. A market-based alternative, where scientists more formally "stake their reputation", is presented here. It offers clear incentives to be careful and honest while contributing to a visible, self-consistent consensus on controversial (or routine) scientific questions. In addition, it allows funders to choose questions to be researched without choosing people or methods. The bulk of this paper is spent examining potential problems with the proposed approach. After this examination, the idea still seems plausible and worth further study."

tweet · print · htmlmarkup tips · 0

mk · 4819 days ago · link ·

This author has mistakenly taken a populist view of scientific research for how research is actually conducted.

I am a researcher. In actuality, we don't typically think up binary hypotheses, and then put them to the test. In fact, most grand hypotheses (those that the media covers) are actually the result of much time and effort simply trying to better understand how a system works. For example, here's a question that we might investigate: What is the role in neuroprogenitor cells in remylination of neurons after stroke? How do you place bets on that?

Here are some more questions: What microRNAs are released from tumor into the blood stream? What are the temporal profiles of these microRNAs in the blood? What are the affects of these microRNAs upon production of lymphocytes, and which miRNAs are involved? Do the microRNAs present in blood change depending upon the metastatic potential of the tumor? Place your bets!

A hammer works great on nails, not so great on screws.

+discuss+discuss

thenewgreen · 4820 days ago · link ·

A market-based alternative, where scientists more formally "stake their reputation -This is the sort of thing that could potentially alleviate this: http://hubski.com/pub?id=10534

Could this market based approach have such severe repercussions as the loss of tenure? It certainly seems like professor Greenfield could stand to see hers go.

+discuss+discuss

–

tallon · 4820 days ago · link ·

The article is very long, but that's because a lot of is the addressing of 30 or so possible objections to this idea. It's not so long if you read up to that point - Hanson addresses that this indeed would get rid of tenure, since it would be completely unnecessary in a system where funding for scientific ideas is guaranteed based on the continuation of production of good ideas. From my understanding, the focus would be brought onto ideas, not the person or group who is presenting them.

+discuss+discuss

–

thenewgreen · 4820 days ago · link ·

Ideas are the product of people. It seems that in the scenarios given everyone in the scientific community would know who's ideas they were "betting" either for or against. If scientists in 1915, were wagering on the validity of continental drift, people would immediately know they were betting for or against that "loon", Wegener. I'm just pointing out that there isn't any anonymity. I'm all for a system that funds based on the continuation of "good ideas", it would beat a system based on cronyism any day. That is, unless your one of the cronies.

+discuss+discuss

–

tallon · 4820 days ago · link ·

I think you're misunderstanding the article. It would matter if they were betting against an idea that seems impossible. The point is that they'd have to spend their own credit, and put their own reputation on the line, in order to make the idea seem "impossible." There would be no reason or incentive for people to randomly bet against ideas that seem impossible just because they disliked someone, since it would still cost them; even if they did continue doing so, they would quickly lose all their credit, just like in modern gambling enterprises.

Read this part: "With idea futures, Wegener could have opened a market for people to bet on his theory, perhaps to be judged by some official body of geologists in a century. He could have then offered to bet a token amount at, say, 1-4 odds, in effect saying there was at least at 20% chance his claim would be vindicated. His opponents would have had to either accept this estimate, and its implications about the importance of Wegener's research, or bet enough to drive the market odds down to something a little closer to "impossible". They could not suppress Wegener merely by silence or ridicule.

As Wegener increased his stake, buying more bets to move the price back up, his opponents would hopefully think just a little more carefully before betting even more to move the price back down. Others might find it in their interest to support Wegener; anyone who thought the consensus odds were wrong would expect to make money by betting, and would thereby move the consensus toward what they believe. Everyone would have a clear incentive to be careful and honest!"

Moreover, Hanson doesn't mention that anonymous bets wouldn't be possible; in fact, in the "Killer Peanut Butter" scenario, he brings it up.