Read on Twitter
I don't want to wade into this much b/c of my own bias as an editor, but pls remember this is from a DARPA project! There are powerful private and gov't interests hoping to co-opt the replication crisis to gain leverage over deciding what kind of research you can produce 1/ https://twitter.com/AlvaroDeMenard/status/1304399437641461760
Does that sound too conspiratorial? Its not. I've yet to see an open science leader really grapple w/the COI implications that almost the entire movement is funded by one billionaire, shameful hypocrisy IMO https://www.wired.com/2017/01/john-arnold-waging-war-on-bad-science/
On the gov't side, Lamar Smith and other conservatives jumped on the replication crisis as a way to discredit climate science and influence research funded. Don't give up your agency over research to people w/less expertise or anti-science agendas https://www.wired.com/story/sciences-reproducibility-crisis-is-being-used-as-political-ammunition/
Does this mean you should abandon efforts to fix science? No. But just don't be so naive that you think this is a good fucking idea that couldn't possibly go wrong https://twitter.com/AlvaroDeMenard/status/1304399458512273408
Relevant (and worse than replication crisis, don't @ me about implicit bias/diversity training that is waaaay beside the point here)- https://twitter.com/starstrickenSF/status/1304851210147491841
And of course- https://twitter.com/DrBreaky/status/1304582043003621377
*There is also a lot going wrong in the piece in terms of its logical coherence, but I'll save that for subtweets/retweets :) https://twitter.com/dan_p_simpson/status/1304987159443668992
