A general piece, that doesn't mention PACE (although Stark was one of the statisticians involved in the re-analysis of PACE data): https://theconversation.com/science...will-get-worse-before-it-can-get-better-86865 I thought that this was an interesting summary of some issues relevant to us, with reference to some ideas and thinkers I'd not come across before. I started pulling out quotes to post here, but ended up with half the short article, so thought it would be better to encourage others to just read it themselves. A cople of bits to let you decide if it might be of interest: He talks about a new paper from Ioannidis which looks at economics research: "In his newest work Ioannidis sets out a list of remedies that science needs to adopt urgently. These include fostering a culture of replication, data sharing and more collaborative works that pool together larger data sets; along with pre-specification of the protocol including model specifications and the analyses to be conducted." The slightly depressing realpolitik conclusion: "call to arms? Ioannidis and co-authors are careful to stress the importance of a multidisciplinary approach, as both troubles and solutions may spill over from one discipline to the other. This would perhaps be a call to the arms for social scientists in general – and for those who study science itself – to tackle the crisis as a priority. Here we clash with another of science’s contradictions: at this point in time, to study science as a scholar would mean to criticise its mainstream image and role. We do not see this happening any time soon. Because of the scars of “science wars” – whose spectre is periodically resuscitated – social scientists are wary of being seen as attacking science, or worse helping US President Donald Trump. Scientists overall wish to use their moral authority and association with Enlightenment values, as seen in the recent marches for science. If these contradictions are real, then we are condemned to see the present crisis becoming worse before it can become better." I wonder if he underestimates the extent to which outsiders to science have been side-lined in these debates. Particularly as it relates to medicine, where the harm done by shoddy research tends to be targeted at particular groups, who will be motivated to fight back.