Why You Can No Longer Trust Most Scientific Experts
How political manipulation has destroyed science and its credibility
Introduction
I obtained my Ph.D. in Chemistry from an American university about 40 years ago at the rather young age of 27. Having a deep love for the subject and wanting to learn more, I spent several more years as a post-doctoral fellow. I learned more about chemistry, how to design experiments, write papers, write grants, etc., in my first year as a post-doc than I did in my entire Ph.D. program and it was the high point of my life. Within five years of leaving that position for a “real” job I left research due to the corruption and dishonesty that I found endemic. That was 30 years ago and it has only gotten worse. What I thought was bad then bears little resemblance to what is occurring today and it is important for nonscientists to understand how this all is supposed to work and how it has been corrupted. So what does this corruption have to do with experts? The connection is there because it is the corruption today that selects for our “experts” using their own warped criteria based upon their personal gain contrary to past efforts where experts arose out of the respect from their peers.
Background
Before I can realistically describe how so much corruption has occurred, I must first explain some basics concepts so we’re all on the same page. (Please note: I use “scientist”, “researcher”, and “Ph.D.” interchangeably through this text to mean the same thing.)
First, not all scientists are corrupted. In fact I would estimate the overwhelming majority are honest researchers who place a high value on being ethical. However, in any large population there is going to inevitably be a number of people who, for whatever reason, sell out to the corruption.
Second, it is important to understand the typical psychological make up of a typical Ph.D. scientist. As a rule they have a Type A personality, are highly motivated self starters, are pragmatic to an extreme, highly intelligent, and logical thinkers. As a general rule, few survive graduate school without these personality traits.
Third, half of all Ph.D. scientists are below average. While this may sound silly and obvious, it is an idea that is as obvious as it is lost to the general person. What this means it that there are going to be Ph.D.s that are incredibly good just as there are going to be ones who are pathetic. The ones who are well below average are just as driven as the best and are far more intelligent that the typical person, but they simply struggle to succeed against their peers. Rarely is the lay person able to discern the very skilled researcher from the incompetent one.
Fourth, limited research funding makes the competition among researchers unlike anything most people have ever encountered. When I wrote grant applications decades ago, for every 100 applications deemed meritable only around 15 - 20 would receive funding. It has only gotten worse since. Now consider that many researchers are hired today on a 3 or 4 year contract and the only way that researcher can maintain their employment beyond that period is to bring in research grants. No grant means no job. The pressure to obtain grants can easily drive certain individuals to perform questionable actions. This is especially true for those researchers who are below average and struggle to compete with those who are far more skilled. This struggle takes on even more significance when the researcher has a family to feed.
Fifth, the scientific community has a set of ethics. As an undergraduate Chemistry major I had to take a course in Professional Ethics which is a course I no longer see offered anywhere I look. Some of these ethical issue should be obvious, but they should be clearly understood nonetheless. One is that you never falsify data. If you do not like the data, you can repeat the experiment for cosmetic purposes, but it is a grave sin to alter or create data to “prove” a point. Another sin is that you always share data whenever asked. Most grants are awarded by the government so technically it is the government who owns your data. Often there is legal language when grants are awarded dealing with patent issues and such, but, when no patent issue exists, there is simply no reason to hide data, computer codes used for data analysis, or any other information involved in your work, from anyone who might request it. (Pro tip: It is a danger signal of the highest order suggesting impropriety when a researcher refuses to share this information and patents are not involved.) This is extremely important because a basic tenet of science is that your work must be reproducible and without sufficient information there can be no attempt by another party to reproduce your work. While there are many other ethical sins in science there is none worse than stealing data by claiming someone else’s work as your own.
Violate these ethics and the consequences should be and need to be severe. If you get caught falsifying data, then the penalty can, based on severity of the violation, range from a public scolding to being ineligible for government funding for 5 or 10 years. Get caught for stealing some else’s work and you get fired with no hope of ever being able to receive funding ever again.
The reason for these ethics and the severe penalties for violating them should be obvious. When the government or anyone else is funding research they are essentially buying a product called information. In science the foundation of tomorrow’s work is the result of today’s experiment. Should you falsify today’s work, then the foundation of tomorrow’s work is compromised meaning tomorrow’s work will likely fail. Think of the wasted time, money and other resources that results from this. Some may claim that the peer review system will catch fraudulent data, but is simply not the case. The entire research system rests on trust and without trust the system will fail so in order to maintain the system penalties for violating this trust must be dealt with harshly. This becomes the sixth issue which is how the failure to adequately enforce ethics will lead to more and worse ethics violations and ultimately the complete destruction of the entire research enterprise.
How Science is Corrupted
There are many ways science can and is corrupted. Some are done with the purpose of enriching one’s self, one’s political party, one’s company, etc., while another is done out of a misplaced sense of compassion. The following partial list of corruption examples is in no order of any kind of commonality of use, significance, or danger.
Government Expert
Every so often the government or some other entity determines that they want to convince the public of some idea they know we will find hard to believe. It might be global warming/climate change, gender dysphoria, COVID 19 vaccinations, benefits of veganism, chemtrails, Bigfoot, UFO abductions, or whatever. Of just as great an importance is how those pushing this false narrative do not want to be the ones blamed should the narrative collapse and the public becomes angry. They want someone else to provide the pound of flesh in this case so they have come up with a creative solution that ends up with them blameless while their false message is proclaimed throughout the land. Here’s how this all works.
First, the government, government agency, company, etc., determines that they need to mount a public relations program to convince the public of a certain issue. They determine what the message should be to engender the wanted response and they create the “logical” argument they want science to provide that will, in their opinion, make the most convincing message possible. They then make their financial investments or perform whatever other actions they need to do in order to maximize their personal rewards from this information campaign. Now they are ready for the next phase.
Second, they find a willing scientist. Sometimes the scientist is below average and struggling mightily to remain employed as a researcher. Sometimes it’s a researcher who craves the limelight. Sometimes it’s a researcher who simply needs the money. Whatever the incentive, the researcher is found and promised the reward he wants the most. Of course this researcher can’t just be anyone. They must be someone with the proper credentials such as a Ph.D. or an MD and they must have some experience in the appropriate field. The older the researcher the better because grey hair/balding with wrinkles and glasses gives to the image of experience and wisdom.
Third, the powers that be start a campaign to tell the world of their selected researcher(s). None are as wise, few have contributed more, sometimes they even receive a contrived award of excellence, etc., and the public is educated on this new and trusted expert. The media jump on board and these experts are trotted onto various talk shows to demonstrate their profound knowledge and wisdom to the world. The interview questions are all scripted and designed to make these experts to appear as likeable and knowledgeable as possible. Now comes the money shot.
Fourth, these designated experts now start telling the world the message they were tasked to provide. They do so earnestly and convincingly. They selectively cite the scientific literature that supports their message while either ignoring or discrediting all other evidence to the contrary. Sometimes the powers that be will fund “research” with the understanding that the desired results are baked in before the work even begins. When the anointed expert is questioned, the powers that be do all they can to ensure the questions are scripted, that naysayers or critics undergo some sort of character assassination to discredit them while building up their experts, etc. Soon you cannot turn on the TV or radio with hearing these experts testifying to Congress or being interviewed by some talking head. Sometimes you’ll see posters hanging on public transportation, in public offices, on billboards, etc., proclaiming the message and soon all the public believes. And this is where it usually ends unless everything falls apart.
Fifth, if everything does fall apart, then disaster control is required. The public has come to realize the message was a lie, but it this was not easy an easy task for the public. After all, the powers that be fought tooth and nail to try and prevent every inconsistent discover, prevent the publishing of anything contrary, and to silence anyone who dared go against the narrative. While this occurs, the powers that be finalize their efforts to milk every last bit of profit from their information campaign, but eventually the information campaign fails and people discover the truth. The public now knows the information campaign was a lie and they demand heads to roll so what are the powers that be going to do? They simply proclaim innocence. “He was the expert. How were we to know he was wrong.” is their claim and just like that the former expert is crushed. Their fame is gone, their grants disappear, and they become worse then disgraced. Meanwhile, the powers that be start moving on to the next campaign.
Agree With Us or Else
For this next case let us assume you want to have a certain degree of power that can be used to control people. After all, the more you can control the more lucrative the possibilities. This process start when you are placed into a position of respect and power. Perhaps you are highly placed in your government, a high ranking member of an international organization such as the UN, etc. In order to gain control over people you need to develop some idea that could be used to manipulate people and you need to foster contacts in potentially important places or contacts who are sure to move up the food chain.
This idea has to have certain characteristics to be successful. The first characteristic is that is must be difficult to impossible to prove or disprove. You do this by creating an idea is very hard to measure with all sorts of variables to confuse the issue and with terrifying results that are very often off in the distant future. So, for example, you might claim that watching cartoons as a child or even as an adult will eventually lead to severely debilitating dementia at a relatively young age such as 50. This will be terrifying to a large number of the public. So how do you prove dementia is going occur in 20, 30, or more years in the future? How do you know how bad the dementia will be? How do you prove cartoons cause dementia? The absolute best argument to be used is “How can you prove it does not cause dementia?” because any scientist worth his or her salt will know it is fundamentally impossible to prove the absolute absence of something. Scientific research can only prove the presence of something or the absence of something to a certain measurement level.
At this point many might think the next step would be to recruit a scientist and start grooming them as an expert per the above example, but this would be wrong. Instead, you recruit like minded people who want in on your power control scheme and the placement of these people is critical. One example would be to recruit a person (we’ll call him Bob) responsible for the grant awarding process. If Bob starts refusing to fund grants that support the idea that watching cartoons is harmless, then gradually researchers will take notice. Since the competition for grants is ferocious, it won’t take long for researchers to realize that, since there appears to be little interest, they have a diminished chance of winning a grant that would prove cartoons to be harmless so they will stop submitting grants for this. The result is that research in this area will dry up. Gradually, the cartoon-dementia idea begins to take hold especially as Bob awards more and more grants to those who promise to show the cartoon-dementia connection. Soon some researchers, especially the more limited ones, will realize that their chances of being awarded a grant would improve significantly if they submitted a proposal that started with the premise that the cartoon-dementia connection was real. They might submit a grant proposal, for example, promising to show how much Vitamin D can limit cartoon induce dementia. As Bob continues to award more and more grants that assume the cartoon-dementia premise there becomes an entire body of literature not only claiming to “prove” the cartoon-dementia connection, but and showing other aspects of the supposed cartoon-dementia relationship. It has now become a “scientific consensus” and only the most brave or foolish would dare to question it.
Many people claim this could never happen because of peer review and they would be wrong in today’s world. This does not work today because Bob had slowly built up his world of influence. A great many people are making lots of money off the cartoon-dementia claim and many more want to join in on the fun. Bob’s advantage of controlling who gets funded has another power that makes the growth of his empire possible. This power is knowing who blindly supports the cartoon-dementia argument and having the power to determine who is involved in the peer review process.
The peer review process works the same whether it is for awarding grants or for accepting research manuscripts for publication. In both of these processes the grant or the paper is sent out to a number of “experts” These ”experts” are people who have a track record of publishing the area in question and their job is to evaluate the grant or manuscript for a number of criteria including significance, how well the work was performed or is proposed to be performed, is the experimental design described flawed, etc. Several different reviewers, who are kept secret from each other, are used in both processes. If you are unethical and control who is involved in the review process, then you can control the outcome of the review process. You can even direct the review process and its outcome by informing the reviewers of each other and coordinating their review comments. So by judiciously choosing and coordinating the reviewers (a.k.a., friends), you can predetermine what papers are chosen to be published, make the comments appear consistent with each other so one party does not stand out and coordinate the process the ensure what grants/manuscripts get the best evaluations. At this point peer review has ceased to exist and “pal review” has taken its place.
Some might argue that this will all fall apart when real world evidence do not match that which was predicted (no increase in dementia is noted among former cartoon watchers decades later). This is not a concern to the powers that be for a number of reasons. One is that the failure of the research to match reality doesn’t occur until far into the future. The future where this flaw becomes absolutely clear is so distant that those who have prospered off of it are long dead. Would you rather die rich with a bad reputation in 100 years or die poor with a good reputation becomes the question. Another reason why this does not happen is that in the near term the powers that be continually redefine their endpoint. Simply by changing the definition of “dementia” you can dramatically increase the numbers falling under that definition thereby giving the illusion of an increase or decrease thus justifying your position. Yet a third way is to continually “correct”, “update”, or “adjust” the data. This involves nudging the data along so that every year data from previous years are all “adjusted” in the direction you demand thus keeping the current year within the desired trend. (Pro tip: An important indication of corruption occurs when you see “adjustments” occurring and that all or virtually all the data being adjusted going in the same direction and that direction supports the current dogma. Statistical reality dictates that whenever data are corrected, data corrections will occur in both directions unless there was a systemic flaw in the work and systemic flaws rarely ever occur more than once.)
But He’s Such a Nice Guy
Another way science can and is being corrupted is by destroying the system’s credibility or the moral of the scientist, especially the talented scientist who resides far into the above average category. This same process to be discussed here also serves to destroy leadership in science which results in bad decisions concerning hiring, promotions, research priorities, funding, etc. All of these issues stem from scientists, who being normal people, suffer the same weaknesses of jealousy, anger, and so forth, that we all do.
One of the worst offences occurs during a collaboration. It’s normal to become myopic about your own research so a good scientist will always seek outside input via collaborations to avoid this. Collaborating in science is a must because other people will be able to look at your work and see things you don’t. They may see solutions you cannot see, they may see opportunities you don’t see, or they may see flaws negatively affecting your work you don’t see. This is one reason why scientists gather at conferences to show their work. After every presentation there is a Q&A where people ask questions, offer solutions or advice, etc. While listening to presentations at conferences is important, I always found the majority of the work was performed in the hallways during meetings or after hours in the restaurant or rathskeller drinking beer and discussing science into the wee hours. This can be very productive if not exhausting. Of the 5 or so peer reviewed papers I would publish every year when I was performing research, at least 1 or 2 of them would be collaborations. Collaborating is a win-win situation. On one hand you became a co-author for your efforts in collaborating and, on the other hand, by publishing more papers and more often and by collaborating so much, you develop a reputation of being a good knowledgeable person to work with which creates even more offers of collaboration.
Sometimes, however, things can go wrong. Sometimes there can be multiple researchers involved in a collaborative effort and every once in a while one of those promising to produce something for the collective work is unable or unwilling to provide what was promised. This can happen for a number of reasons and when it does the party not participating as promised typically takes all the information they had obtained for the failed collaboration and destroys it. Being that they made no contribution to the effort, they are then excluded from any publication that might arise. What rarely happens is when this person, instead of discarding the information, attempts to publish the information as their own work without the knowledge of the real authors. In other cases people may try and publish the work without acknowledging the significant effort performed by one or all the other collaborators by leaving them off the list of authors. In one case I have seen, for example, an entire research field was stalled for years by a problem. When a collaborator had an idea and became involved in the work, not only did they show why the work was stalled at that particular point, but that it was impossible to overcome this problem (thus amounting to a major breakthrough in that field), the collaborator was never acknowledged on the proposed manuscript. The original researcher clearly wanted to claim the breakthrough for themself and receive the accompanying accolades. In either case, there is no greater sin in science. This amounts to stealing someone’s work or critical ideas by publishing the work their own in an effort to make it appear that they were the ones behind the entire work or breakthrough.
When this happens, the absolute worst thing that can happen is nothing. By claiming the offender is a nice guy and really did not intend to do harm and therefore should not be sanctioned, they are rationalizing and justifying this dishonest behavior. This attitude enables similar behavior in the future. Even worse is the effect upon the aggrieved. If people are going to steal your work with no consequence, then why should you collaborate in the first place? The effects of removing collaboration from science would be to drastically curtail scientific progress. Having someone steal your ideas or work without consequence would be akin to having someone beating you senseless in front of a police station, stealing, and then destroying your car, only for the police to let the thief go because he was a nice guy who really did not mean it. So how often does this morale destroying behavior happen? Overall, such as nationally or internationally, I have no idea how often this act occurs in science. What I do know is that a close colleague of mine became quite bitter when this occurred to him twice within a period of a few years. What made it worse was that in both cases the perpetrators were let off with no consequence.
Every once in a while there is a report of some scientist who was well known and highly regarded who was involved in widespread fabrication of data and even entire manuscripts or series of manuscripts. When this happens the offending scientist is removed from their position and rarely ever works in science ever again. The ripple effects from this becomes enormous for everyone else. All the work performed by others that was based on these fraudulent papers are now questionable and that work must either be redone, reevaluated, or discarded. In some cases entire research areas have been set back by years as researchers were forced to redo their research in an effort to recapture that lost knowledge or repair errors. Oftentimes it requires the opinions or views by scientists in that field to undergo significant revision because the foundation for so much just collapsed. How can anyone be an expert in a field filled with lies and errors?
Equity
In science there is or should be no issue of racism, ageism, sexism, etc. For the most part advancement in science, reputations, etc., has always been based solely upon ability and accomplishment. I have collaborated with many without ever meeting them. I have been on student’s Ph.D. committees without ever meeting the student. I even collaborated with one researcher for two years before meeting him. He had assumed, based on our conversations and such, that I was considerably older than him and was shocked to discover that I was actually 8 years his junior. I collaborated with another who went by “E. B.” (not their real initials) who had a rather deep voice on the phone. I really liked this person because they ware scary smart, vary talented, had a good sense of humor, and had some really good ideas. It turned out E. B. was a minority woman and we had the most fun together when we finally met at a conference. That’s the way it’s supposed to work.
What has helped corrupted science so badly is the idea of equity. I have personally seen cases where, after being told that all promotions and such would be based solely on one’s publication record (less than 1 per year being considered a failure), that an individual who was a minority, having published 1 paper in several years (and that related to their graduate school work) was promoted to fellow, the highest position available, within a few years of obtaining their Ph.D. When people are promoted to leadership positions based upon anything other than track record, it undermines the morale of others and leads to terrible decisions that can effect the entire organization. Having accomplished little in science and being so young, how can this person make sound decisions for the organization. Decisions such as who should be funded using limited internal money, who should be promoted, who should be allowed a sabbatical, etc., are examples of decisions that require experience to be better made. Similarly, I have personally seen where, due to budgetary cutbacks, multiple laboratories were evaluated to determine which programs were least effective and could be eliminated. What was claimed to be a merit based approach was, in reality, a travesty where those laboratories that were politically connected were evaluated above those who were not so connected while actual merit actually a secondary consideration, if that.
Even worse is the grade inflation that grants advanced degrees to those who are not qualified (using historical criteria) for this only increases the population of lower quality researchers while diluting the overall competence of the researcher pool. Having more researchers of decreasing quality apply for grants makes the obtaining of grants more difficult, reduces the effectiveness of the peer review process (when utilized as intended), and helps dilute research efforts. We are in competition with the world, so we should, if anything, reinstate the high degree of rigor required for advanced degrees. A person should not obtain a degree because they deserve it for whatever reason, they should, instead, earn it via a proven rigorous program. A bruised ego, being a minority, or anything other than academic accomplishment is no basis upon which a degree or a position should be awarded in science.
How are we to compete with others in various countries when we have our hands tied behind us with evaluations and promotions are based on politics and connections instead of merit - a practice that inevitably leads to bad decisions, unnecessary requirements, and morale destroying initiatives? How can the best rise up to become notable experts in such a corrupt system?
Conclusion
The research program in the US has been crippled by being politicized. We have taken what was once the envy of the world and reduced it to a shadow of its former self and, if we continue on this path, it will become a sad joke. We can see how the number of peer papers published by Americans has slowly deceased over time just as have the number of patents awarded to Americans thus showing how our dominance in science and technology no longer exists. Our technology is what has been the driving force behind our prosperity and it is this decrease in world leadership in science and technology that has led to our decreasing ability to innovate in the laboratory. Our decreasing influence in the world and our standard of living will soon follow. It is with this background that we see the corrupt dictate to us who our experts should be based on their corrupt criteria and demands. Is it any wonder why these false and manufactured experts are continually being found wanting? Is it any wonder why we are continually failing?