By definition, few things represent the pinnacle of human achievement. Among them are science, great art, free markets, great literature, philosophy, music, and American football.

On that list, only science and football are modern inventions, and of those two only football is getting better. Science, unfortunately, is in crisis.

I’ve written other pieces on science and academia, and no doubt will write hundreds more. But after having read two pieces today that touch on this topic, I thought I would share some thoughts with you.

Fraud is an extreme instance of false science, but most science and most scientists tweeting on this app use false studies to support their preconceived policy ideas

I explain in @Sensible__Med https://t.co/lVMmyZcXL0 pic.twitter.com/VUi1aM65lx

— Vinay Prasad MD MPH (@VPrasadMDMPH) July 24, 2023

I often refer to Vinay Prasad in my writing because he is clear-thinking and an easily approachable read even with just basic science knowledge. This particular essay is a good contribution to the “What is wrong with science” conversation.

Prasad’s immediate point is by now an obvious one: much of what passes for “science” discourse in the public policy sphere is thinly veiled narrative pushing. This has become so obvious that it barely needs explanation, and I won’t waste your time rehashing all the evidence. I haven’t the patience, and if by now you haven’t figured out that we have been asked to swallow a bunch of bull crap in recent years, there is no point in doing so. To me, it is self-evident.

But the problems go much deeper than politicized science, on which Prasad mainly focuses in this particular article. Even science that has no obvious or public policy implication is often, perhaps usually, poorly done for a variety of reasons not having to do with science itself, but the structure of “Science” as an academic and grant-driven process.

Simply put, scientists are not primarily engaged in the pursuit of truth in the current environment–even if and when that is their ultimate goal–because science is now a career that depends upon getting academic positions, funding, publications, growing prestige, and usually a government stamp of approval.

The incentive structure within which scientists get to pursue their profession does not actually reward finding true things. It rewards people for pleasing the people who employ and fund them. Even peer review, which is supposed to ensure scientific quality and integrity, rewards pleasing the people who are your “peers,” who in fact are likely people far along in their own careers, and who don’t want somebody blowing up their prestige by proving them wrong.

Finding “new,” “surprising,” media-worthy results gets rewarded. Making incremental progress toward understanding something, or God forbid demonstrating that something politically popular is wrong can be a death knell to the career of a young researcher.

Best to go along.

Science in the last 50 years has changed drastically from the time of its invention. Until fairly recently, scientists tended to be few and to work alone or in small groups collaboratively. At first, experiments were cheap and even self-funded. Today experiments often cost millions, hundreds of millions, or even billions of dollars, and the teams involved can be hundreds of people. Most scientists are not geniuses experiencing “Aha!” moments, but rather very smart people involved in a collaborative exercise that went through a vast bureaucracy, and a grant process, and are led by one of the few leading lights of the profession who may or may not be an egomaniacal tyrant who is simply good at playing the bureaucratic game.

Almost 20 years ago, John Ioannidis wrote a journal article that is one of the most cited in history: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. He outlines his argument, and it is compelling. Since he wrote that piece, I think the problem has only gotten worse, because the incentives for promoting bad or misleading research are greater today than at any time. Whether you are motivated by partisan predilections or only want to survive in a highly competitive environment, you need results that people notice and like.

It’s no different than the yes man getting ahead in a corporation while the loner who is off in a corner doing good work gets stuck there.

Occasionally a scientist who has achieved high enough stature can break with the herd, and often they are pretty scathing toward the enterprise. One such scientist–a Nobel Prize-winning physicist–got himself uninvited from giving a prestigious lecture because he had the courage to say that climate alarmism is bunk.

"Dr. Clauser spoke in July at the event Quantum Korea 2023. What follows is a transcript of his remarks that prompted the International Monetary Fund to cancel his appearance this week, and began a predictable trajectory of broader cancellation."https://t.co/UyTcHs7z1K

— Brownstone Institute (@brownstoneinst) July 25, 2023

As an 81-year-old physicist, he is immune from cancelation, but they sure are trying.

Dr. John F. Clauser, born 1942, is an American theoretical and experimental physicist known for contributions to the foundations of quantum mechanics. Clauser was awarded the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, jointly with Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger “for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science.”

Dr. Clauser spoke in July at the event Quantum Korea 2023. What follows is a transcript of his remarks that prompted the International Monetary Fund to cancel his appearance this week, and began a predictable trajectory of broader cancellation.

Here is the core of his critique:

Good science is always based on good experiments. Good observations always overrule purely speculative theory. Sloppy experiments, on the other hand, are frequently counterproductive and provide scientific disinformation. That is why good scientists repeat each other’s experiments carefully.

For inspiration to young scientists, I would suggest that today is an opportune moment for careful observations of nature. Why? The current world I observe is literally awash, saturated, with pseudoscience, with bad science, with scientific misinformation and disinformation, and what I will call ”techno-cons.” Techno-cons are the application of scientific disinformation for opportunistic purposes. 

Non-science business managers, politicians, politically appointed lab directors and the like are very easily snowed by scientific disinformation. Sometimes they participate in its origination. The purpose is to try to inspire you as young scientists to observe nature directly so that you too can determine real truth. Use the information gained from carefully performed experiments and research to stop the spread of scientific misinformation, disinformation and techno-cons.

Well-educated scientists can help solve the world’s problems by acting as scientific fact-checkers. A fact-checker’s most common problem, unfortunately, is determining what is true and what is not. The world is awash with someone else’s perception of truth as an alternative to real truth.

Perception of truth frequently differs significantly from real truth. Moreover, given sufficient promotion and advertising, perception of truth becomes truth. Its promotion by commercial enterprise Is called marketing, commonly used in the furtherance of political, commercial, or various opportunistic ends by its promoters. When promotion is done by government or political groups, it’s called spin or propaganda. 

To such a promoter, perception of truth is truth. If you can sell it, it must be true. If you can’t sell it, it must be false. Perception of truth is also malleable. If you can sell it, if you want to sell it, and you can’t sell it, that’s easy. You change it. You can change truth. You can claim false observations if necessary. 

Clauser later on in the piece characterizes climate science as pseudoscience and the IPCC as one of the greatest spreaders of misinformation out there. But that is not my point, although I agree. Rather, what matters ultimately is the larger issue, of which climate alarmism is merely a subset: the scientific enterprise itself is broken. The failures of the IPCC are not an exception to how science is done in the West but rather are simply a microcosm of the larger problem.

Somehow the incentive structures have to change. I don’t see how to get away from expensive science, which is one of the key problems. If you need big money you have to please those who provide it.

I strongly suggest you listen to Clauser’s entire speech. If nothing else, it is a refreshing reminder that there are still scientists out there willing to go where the truth leads, no matter who it annoys.