Interesting article, though I'm not terribly surprised to see this finally reaching the attention of news media. I wonder about the implication of this news. Will investors adopt a more scrutinous eye towards scientific funding? Not likely; science pays too well to put a dent in this process. Will peer review committees take this to heart? I can't see that as being too likely; each agent is more than likely to assume the failing parts lie elsewhere than in themselves. What I'd like to believe is that research scientists themselves will slowly re-adopt higher and higher standards, but is this realistic? If success depends on publications instead of results, then the scientists face a difficult motivational drive: Do it scientifically proper or do it for personal success.

I fear that nothing short of Bayesian methods will be able to effectively resolve this problem. I wonder if Yudkowsky's argument for Bayesianism will merely modify science in the long run or if it will ultimately result in some sort of "anti-science" meme.