It’s hard to follow the science when the science follows the party line…

How ‘Preapproved Narratives’ Corrupt Science: Especially in climate and Covid research, abuse of peer review and self-censorship abound.

 

Scientists were aghast last month when Patrick Brown, climate director at the Breakthrough Institute in Berkeley, Calif., acknowledged that he’d censored one of his studies to increase his odds of getting published. Credit to him for being honest about something his peers also do but are loath to admit.

In an essay for the Free Press, Mr. Brown explained that he omitted “key aspects other than climate change” from a paper on California wildfires because such details would “dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival, Science, want to tell.” Editors of scientific journals, he wrote, “have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives.”

Nature’s editor, Magdalena Skipper, denied that the journal has “a preferred narrative.” No doubt the editors at the New York Times and ProPublica would say the same of their own pages.

Mr. Brown’s criticisms aren’t new. In 2005 Stanford epidemiologist John Ioannidis wrote an essay titled “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” He contended that scientists “may be prejudiced purely because of their belief in a scientific theory or commitment to their own findings.” . . .

Journals often don’t compensate peer reviewers, which can result in perfunctory work. The bigger problem is that reviewers often disregard a study’s flaws when its conclusions reinforce their own biases. One result is that “a large share of what is published may not be replicable or is obviously false,” Dr. Ioannidis notes. “Even outright fraud may be becoming more common.” . . .

Scientific journals and preprint servers aren’t selective about research quality. They’re selective about the conclusions. If experts want to know why so many Americans don’t trust “science,” they have their answer. Too many scientists no longer care about science.

 

Every successful system accumulates parasite. American science has been successful for a long time, but now its parasite load has become unhealthy.

 

by Glenn Reynolds

Uh-oh! It looks like you're using an ad blocker.

Our website relies on ads and the generous support of readers like you to keep delivering free, high-quality content. Right now, we are facing serious funding challenges and we need your help more than ever. Disable your ad blocker and this message will vanish. You can also sign up for a membership to enjoy an ad-free experience while supporting our work: https://citizenwatchreport.com/plans/subscriptions/ Your support helps us stay independent, continue our work, and keep content free for everyone. We truly appreciate your understanding and thank you for standing with us.