Posted on 08/10/2023 2:38:01 PM PDT by DeweyCA
The number of scientific papers retracted annually rose from just 40 in 2000 to almost 5,500 in 2022, representing a whopping 13,650% change over the past 22 years, with researchers estimating an astonishing 100,000 would have to be withdrawn every year with more thorough vetting.
Delivering a blow to the “trust the science” cheerleaders, Retraction Watch’s co-founders Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus detail the alarming issues with modern science for the left-wing Guardian newspaper.
The surge in bogus papers is driven in part by the fact that scientists are often “required… to publish papers in order to earn and keep jobs or to be promoted,” which leads to some turning to so-called “paper mills” that “sell everything from authorships to entire manuscripts to researchers who need to publish lest they perish.”
Only around a fifth of retractions are a result of “honest error,” Oransky and Marcus note, highlighting serious misconduct cases such as that of Joachim Boldt, a German anesthesiologist whose falsified data on an ineffective blood substitute was once widely cited and led to many people being harmed.
A related issue is the so-called replication crisis. It has become increasingly apparent that the results found in many scientific papers – possibly a majority of them – cannot be reproduced by other researchers. In 2015, for example, efforts to reproduce psychology studies published in supposedly high-quality journals failed 61 out of 100 times, with similar results in 2018.
The issue is also present in the hard sciences, with efforts by the University of Virginia to reproduce five “landmark” cancer studies failing in one case and producing inconclusive results in two others – hinting that “the science” may be mostly wrong across the board.
” science “ has become
The GRIFT of science.
Climate change research funding is the main cause of global warming.
I love how they tout the “peer reviewed” aspect, when they get to pick their peers.
Sometimes I re-purpose, or intend to re-purpose, expired patents when marketing asks us to come up with a new product (I’m in R&D, chemistry and packaging).
Probably about 25% of the time the patents do not produce what they claim.
I have had much more success replicating patents from companies than from universities.
My guess is that professors are under pressure to publish whereas companies must invent a new product to sell. Two completely different motivations.
Scientists are held to funding and thier captors agenda, follow it or be defunded
Fairy tales used to begin, “Once upon a time.” Today they begin with, “In a study just released by the CDC...”
Agrowing number of people, including prominent scientists, are calling for a full retraction of a high-profile study published in the journal Nature in March 2020 that explored the origins of SARS-CoV-2.
The paper, whose authors included immunology and microbiology professor Kristian G. Andersen, declared that evidence clearly showed that SARS-CoV-2 did not originate from a laboratory.
Yet a trove of recently published documents reveal that Andersen and his co-authors believed that the lab leak scenario was not just possible, but likely.
“We unfortunately can’t refute the lab leak hypothesis,” Andersen said on Feb. 20, several days after the authors published their pre-print.
To complicate matters further, new reporting from The Intercept reveals that Anderson had an $8.9 million grant with NIH pending final approval from Dr. Anthony Fauci when the Proximal Origin paper was submitted.
The findings have led several prominent figures to accuse the authors of outright deception.
Richard H. Ebright, the Board of Governors Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Rutgers University, called the paper “scientific fraud.”
“The 2020 ‘Proximal Origin’ paper falsely claimed science showed COVID-19 did not have a lab origin,” tweeted Ebright. “Newly released messages from the authors show they did not believe the conclusions of the paper and show the paper is the product of scientific fraud and scientific misconduct.”
Ebright and Silver are among those pushing a petition urging Nature to retract the article in light of these findings.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2023-08-09/caught-red-handed
In college I sometimes worked in the lab of the college’s number one money-earner. He said, “My first question is always, ‘what is it you’re trying to prove?’” Then, I set about proving it. I read some of the studies and the evidence clearly proved the opposite, but you’d have to search hard in the conclusion to see that was the case. The conclusion was some of the most carefully crafted political language I’ve ever read. To keep the customer coming back, you prove whatever it is he wants proven. Period. End of story. That’s high dollar science for you.
LOL or as we used to snark...
“bad data is better than no data at all”
Most scientists produce studies that support their funding.
Exactly! Thanks for posting your experience! Whether it’s the government, NGO, or a company with something to sell, these “experts” and “studies” goal is to prove what they are being paid to prove. They want their income stream to keep rolling in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.