Did we have to make this arc available in pdf format?

I quite enjoyed this even with the bleakness of the day topic in the end it's very cathartic for those who've had these thoughts but didn't know how to express them.

Ultimately it is a critic of science academia so do go in knowing it's reflections on that and not the whole institution of science.

The biggest surprise to me was how journals are weighted and perceived to have merit and how that position is largely unearned. It's giving me a lot to think about going forward and rest assured I will annoy everyone with this knowledge going forward.

I appreciate that we got solutions at the end of each chapter for questions raised which made it feel like a more hopeful read. All in all it's well explained but I just wish we used ellipsis's less.

Science is sick, but it can recover…

It would be inaccurate to describe the book as unremittingly negative, as each chapter does close with some prescriptions for how to improve matters, and the conclusion of the book points to a positive impression of what Science could be…

Nevertheless, the rest of the book reads as an accusation of misconduct against the way that Science is currently practised. Whether it be an unhealthy focus upon ‘Publish or Perish’, which leads to pointless publications, or the over-production of Scientists which leads to false career paths and potentially unfair working practices, the author insists that Science is failing and needs to do better.

The issues surrounding funding and money are particularly serious, with ever more (or an ever-diminishing pot) going to fewer and fewer of the big names in Science. The author suggests that this skews research priorities into unambitiously ‘safe’ projects, and it creates a funding treadmill which just wastes time and resources for the rest of the Scientific community. The points are forcibly made, but it is also the case that almost any distribution of funding can be challenged or queried, on the basis that it could do better. So, maybe the author is right, or maybe he is wrong. To some extent the claims are unfalsifiable, as we can never know what might have been, if different decisions had been taken.

One section which I thought was particularly well focused was the chapters on Science and Religion and Pseudo Science. The author makes the point that some Scientists pick a fight with Religion which is completely unnecessary and often counter-productive. Whereas perhaps the real foe is Pseudo-Science which leads to avoidable deaths in its false claims about medicines and health practices.

Where I think the book could have done a little better is to recognise that there may also be non-scientific factors constraining Scientific practices. For example, its easy to criticise Scientists for using hard data (like publications) in recruitment. But perhaps they are doing so because of a litigious culture which means that softer metrics can lead to legal challenges? This raises the question of whether the author is always fair and accurate in some of what he lays at Science’s door.

And while the book was targeting the faults of Scientific practice, it did began to feel wearingly overly negative in places. Personally, I think that the book would have read better if criticisms of Science were alternated with a little more positivity about what Science actually achieves.

Overall, the book is well written and well researched, with around 20% devoted to footnotes and follow-up materials. It is accessible to non-specialist readers and should be of interest to those within areas of Science, Economics and Public Policy.

(These are honest comments on a Review copy of the text, which was accessed digitally in Feb 2024).

An interesting read, Sutter identifies a bunch of problems in how Science is presented to citizens, and offers answers that may work.

I was prepared to be annoyed but I found this book quite good and the suggestions practical. It starts talking about the problems with research, like how people have to "publish or perish," and how that leads to bad science even when people don't have nefarious motives. There's talk about science communication, and how it's simply not done even though it's funded. My favorite part was admitting political bias to take away that argument Maybe people won't take these suggestions, but something must be done. People pay a real price when they trust charlatans and grifters over scientists.
Thanks to NetGalley for letting me read this

An excellent, frank discussion of the challenges we face in science. Dr. Sutter offers a carefully constructed and balanced critique with many examples. From the influence of politics to the challenges of p-hacking and "publish or perish" cultures, Rescuing Science is a well-crafted call to action.

I loved this book. Sutter is obviously very passionate about science and writes from a place of love. Indeed the solutions proposed to problems in how science is run could be considered tough love. I found the writing gripping and the book was hard to put down. The tone was conversational, so much so that I felt like Sutter was talking to me over coffee. He also writes with some humour which I greatly appreciated. Some of the bitterness that Sutter feels seeped through but this also reflects his passion for science. I had some science training and this book resonated with me. I recommend this book for anyone interested in how science works. Thank you to Netgalley and Rowman & Littlefield for the advance reader copy.

I think many of us grew up thinking that science was full of experts whom we should believe because of what science is, while we also watched scary shows about science and scientists gone wrong – mad scientists, Bond villains, etc. As adults we may question how reliable scientists really are, based mostly on news stories and events around us. What if scientists were just people like anyone else – smarter, perhaps, but with motives and faults other than knowledge and the public good? This book is one scientist’s critique of the field in attempt to answer that question (he agrees) and more importantly, to talk about what can be done to address the areas where things are going wrong.

He takes on academia first, and he’s not wrong that there’s a lot wrong with the system. There are centuries of momentum doing things a certain way that perpetuate the issues he sees, and there are valid criticisms and suggestions for improvement that may not be readily implementable based on his criticism alone. How do you change a behemoth like this is a question I often had while reading.

The author sets up an unintended tension in this section, and that tension endures through the book to its detriment. He argues that science is risk-averse and programs, funding, etc. tend to go with safe bets that extend current knowledge just a little, or confirm existing thinking. He also argues that science that isn’t big, bold, or flashy isn’t popular and doesn’t get funded. Which is it? These scenarios are opposites, and I struggled with that as I read.

He does a good job of showing us why so many people don’t trust what science says, but he falls victim to his own thesis at times. After convincing readers that science must be supported by data, must be framed in terms of falsifiable hypotheses that can be tested, and must turn its own methods on itself, he throws out two big areas where public mistrust is large and dismisses any criticism of them since their topics are (to him) undeniably true. I’m talking about vaccination and climate change, two topics where the louder advocates say they are right, the less people are likely to believe them. The book suffers in this area, as it does not take its own advice. If the public the author assures us is not made up of idiots, why dismiss them as if they are in these instances?

The politicization of science is a good section, as the author suggests that politically neutral science is a myth so why not embrace the truth of the matter. Government scientists promoting their agenda is just as political as tobacco company scientists promoting theirs, whether we like it or not. The author rightly shows that money is often the biggest driver of the sciences, and that trend perpetuates itself.

What can be done? I don’t see the author’s suggestions being taken up, unfortunately. There’s a lot of what we should do in the book, but there’s very little about how we should do it. I also think that fields other than science suffer from similar issues, and that would be an interesting book, too.

I’m glad I read it and I encourage anyone who thinks about science to read it for a better understanding of how science gets done, but I also want to point to the epilogue where the author realizes he needs to say a few words about the good things science has to offer. This book is about the negative side, but if reading it leaves you thinking it’s all negative, turn next to your favorite popular science title and get reacquainted with the good that somehow comes out of the broken system described by the author.