We object to Bad Science: Poor research practices should be discouraged!

Abstract

On 8 June 2020, we, a diverse group of African emerging researchers, published a response to the commentary titled 'Why are black South African students less likely to consider studying biological sciences?' (1) published in the South Africa Journal of Science (SAJS). There are mounting arguments, in both print and social media, regarding the merits of the Nattrass (2020) commentary, particularly around its strong racial undertones as well as poor and unethical research practices. Nattrass' commentary has been intensely divisive, managing to engender stereotypes, anger, and disappointment. Conflicting arguments have emerged, which involve responses by other academics, politicians, and the public, but much of the furore has been strongly biased towards and along racial lines, with very little attention directed at the flawed nature of the research. Such questions as the one asked by Nattrass (1) in the title of the commentary are valid and should be explored. Such research, in fact any research, must involve scientific rigour, robust methodological approaches, sensitivity and adherence to ethical principles. With the right approach and the involvement of multi-sector collaborators, we can begin to innovatively and constructively address the potential societal challenges that may arise. Science should be respected and trusted, and should build a fundamental basis for societal benefits and decision-making processes. Issues of race, whether socially constructed or not (2) are sensitive, and should be treated as such. When dealing with sensitive subjects, it is important to be cognizant of one's inherent unconscious biases. To drive this, scientists, editors, leaders in academia and industry, government research institutions, NGOs and publishers have taken steps to promote ethical conduct in research by signing The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (3). The Statement was founded on four principles: viz. honesty, accountability, professionalism, and stewardship, which inform the fourteen responsibilities of ethical research conduct. As researchers, it is important that we use these principles and responsibilities to guide our research, and to maintain our responsibilities to each other, to the people and to the environment. For this reason, we wish to express our concern that the Nattrass (2020) commentary and the research contained therein, has violated many of these governing principles. Moreover, in publishing this commentary with all its methodological flaws and ethical problems, the South African Journal of Science (SAJS) has also violated these principles and responsibilities.

In defence of exploratory research: A reply to critics

“…Additional qualitative and ethnographic research could prove very productive. I accept the argument made by Mothapo et al 20 about the importance of improving the institutional climate at universities and encouraging a greater sense of belonging amongst all students in the sciences. I also accept that it is quite possible that, in a larger, more representative sample, the statistical associations I picked up in the analysis would not be replicated.…”

“…4,19 A slightly more subtle criticism is that I am unaware of my 'own biases … and narrow-minded views of black people'. 20 My 'assumptions' about students were 'problematic' whilst my 'presuppositions' were 'under-examined' and 'Eurocentric or worse'. 21 My 'presuppositions' that 'explain my conclusion… involve a set of racially charged tropes', leading to 'bad science hanging on the horns of prejudice'.…”

“…Some critics go so far as to accuse me of deceit. Mothapo et al 20 suggest that I submitted my piece as a Commentary in order 'to hinder and avoid critical examination of their research as well as to prevent open and objective discourse about the validity of the findings with the wider research community'.…”