The level of fraud going on in life sciences seems absolutely astounding. I used to think that fraudulent research was mainly “paper mill” stuff.
But in the last couple years there are so many cases of outright data falsification from famous scientists’ labs and in Science/Nature/Cell publications.
It seems even worse than the social science replication crisis, and with worse consequences.
It's like doping in sports, the cheaters get all the money and glory - until they get tested. The solution is more tests. If the study can't be replicated then there is a problem. There should be more tests in science, without tests it's not science.
What is the test though? Can you make it big before the tests matter? Would you be punished if the tests eventually fail?
If you do really well with life sciences, you'll convince people that you've got a miracle cure, while convincing regulators that you aren't selling a miracle cure. Like an ivermectin
I think what's unique about the social sciences, is that they went public with their problems earlier. It's probably about as bad in every field that has the same (or similar) set of incentives to publish and disincentives or lack of incentives to check the work of others.
But in the last couple years there are so many cases of outright data falsification from famous scientists’ labs and in Science/Nature/Cell publications.
It seems even worse than the social science replication crisis, and with worse consequences.