Dan and James discuss whether you need to have “skin in the game” to critique research.
Here's what else they cover in the episode:
- Should scientists be required to communicate their science?
- If your research is likely to be misinterpreted try and get out of in front of what's going to be said
- Will science communication just become another metric?
- The distinction between “science communication” and “science media”
- Who’s going to pay for all science communicators that we’ll need to communicate everyone’s science?
- Dan and James mispronounce Dutch and German names and give a formal apology to the nation of The Netherlands
- Outcome switching in clinical trials
- Does having skin in the game guarantee expertise, or just wild biases?
- James’ recent desk rejection from a Journal Editor
- Dan’s method to invite manuscript reviewers as an Associate Editor
Links:
The science communication Twitter thread https://twitter.com/ocaptmycapt/status/927193779693645825
ERC comics https://www.erccomics.com
The “skin in the game” tweet https://twitter.com/paperbag1/status/914923706648055813
That study in neuopsychopharmacology on a IL-6 receptor antibody to treat residual symptoms in schizophrenia https://www.nature.com/articles/npp2017258