I don't know enough to ask the right question...but do you think there is any type of research being paid for with a specific outcome targeted? Not to break out my tinfoil hat, but the conspiracy theory part of me assumes that pharma/manufacturing companies with the most to lose, would be willing to part with large sums to skew research majorities in their favor.
Like I said I'm mostly ignorant of that domain, and curious what more informed people would say on that topic.
Absolutely science for hire is a real thing and even unconscious bias is dangerous, but the scientific method is based on reproducibility and predictive power. Important results will get tested and picked apart and studied over and over. It might take time to arrive at a really solid conclusion, but the only way we have to fight bias and error is to repeatedly compare our ideas to reality. That’s all science is.
In this case, it seems like a claim that most table salt contains micro plastics should not be a very hard result to refute or reproduce. Usually scientists will avoid making claims that they aren’t really sure of and are easy to disprove.
There has always been bogus science, since before there was science. The fact is we know there is a replication crisis. How to we know that? By applying the scientific method to try to replicate results.
The replication crisis is an example of science working the way it is supposed to. It’s scientists using the scientific method to call their colleagues to account. It’s just that it takes time.
There’s nothing wrong with the method itself. Make testable claims. Have other people test them. What the replication crisis tells us is we need to do this more, not that we need to do it less or not at all.
Medical research is paid for by people that want a specific outcome. But, they also care about the truth as they don’t want drugs that kill people for example.
Net result a small bias, but not the kind of conspiracy worth talking about.
tobacco/fossil fuel companies come to mind - it's never explicit, but there is nudging to disprove certain claims.
You can see how well it's working - money delayed but did not change the truth.
Science is very difficult to pay off. Individuals can spend another 10 years studying after high school just to get enough responsibility worth bribing... and even if they accepted the bribe, peer review would still reveal the sham research forever tainting their name.
So, yeah, people don't really accept bribes.
The worst you'll see is in pharma, where they're testing drugs - a researcher might select test subjects that will react well to a drug in order to make it look better (hiding side effects).
Like I said I'm mostly ignorant of that domain, and curious what more informed people would say on that topic.