logo
The Scientific Literature Can't Save Us Now

The Scientific Literature Can't Save Us Now

The Atlantic13-02-2025

Twice during his Senate confirmation hearings at the end of January, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. brought up a peer-reviewed study by a certain 'Mawson' that had come out just the week before. 'That article is by Mawson,' he said to Senator Bill Cassidy, then spelled out the author's name for emphasis: 'M-A-W-S-O-N.' And to Bernie Sanders: 'Look at the Mawson study, Senator. … Mawson. Just look at that study.'
'Mawson' is Anthony Mawson, an epidemiologist and former academic who has published several papers alleging a connection between childhood vaccines and autism. (Any such connection has been thoroughly debunked.) His latest on the subject, and the one to which Kennedy was referring appeared in a journal that is not indexed by the National Library of Medicine, or by any other organization that might provide it with some scientific credibility. One leading member of the journal's editorial board, a stubborn advocate for using hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin to treat COVID-19, has lost five papers to retraction. Another member is Didier Raoult (whose name the journal has misspelled), a presence on the Retraction Watch leaderboard, which is derived from the work of a nonprofit we cofounded, with 31 retractions. A third, and the journal's editor in chief, is James Lyons-Weiler, who has one retraction of his own and has called himself, in a since deleted post on X, a friend and 'close adviser to Bobby Kennedy.' (Mawson told us he chose this journal because several mainstream ones had rejected his manuscript without review. Lyons-Weiler did not respond to a request for comment.)
Perhaps a scientist or politician—and certainly a citizen-activist who hopes to be the nation's leading health-policy official—should be wary of citing anything from this researcher or this journal to support a claim. The fact that one can do so anyway in a setting of the highest stakes, while stating truthfully that the work originated in a peer-reviewed, academic publication, reveals an awkward fact: The scientific literature is an essential ocean of knowledge, in which floats an alarming amount of junk. Think of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, but the trash cannot be identified without special knowledge and equipment. And while this problem is long-standing, until the past decade or so, no one with both the necessary expertise and the power to intervene has been inclined to help. With the Trump administration taking control of the CDC and other posts on the nation's science bulwark, the consequences are getting worse. As RFK Jr. made plain during his confirmation hearing, the advocates or foes of virtually any claim can point to published work and say, 'See? Science!'
This state of affairs is not terribly surprising when one considers how many studies labeled as 'peer reviewed' appear every year: at least 3 million. The system of scientific publishing is, as others have noted, under severe strain. Junk papers proliferate at vanity journals and legitimate ones alike, due in part to the 'publish or perish' ethos that pervades the research enterprise, and in part to the catastrophic business model that has captured much of scientific publishing since the early 2000s.
That model—based on a well-meaning attempt to free scientific findings from subscription paywalls—relies on what are known as article-processing charges: fees researchers pay to publishers. The charges aren't inconsequential, sometimes running into the low five figures. And the more papers that journals publish, the more money they bring in. Researchers are solicited to feed the beast with an ever-increasing number of manuscripts, while publishers have reason to create new journals that may end up serving as a destination for lower-quality work. The result: Far too many papers appear each year in too many journals without adequate peer review or even editing.
The mess that this creates, in the form of unreliable research, can to some extent be cleaned up after publication. Indeed, the retraction rate in science—meaning the frequency with which a journal says, for one reason or another, 'Don't rely on this paper'—has been growing rapidly. It's going up even faster than the rate of publication, having increased roughly tenfold over the past decade. That may sound like editors are weeding out the literature more aggressively as it expands. And the news is in some ways good—but even now, far more papers should be retracted than are retracted. No one likes to admit an error—not scientists, not publishers, not universities, not funders.
Profit motive can sometimes trump quality control even at the world's largest publishers, which earn billions annually. It also fuels a ravenous pack of 'paper mills' that publish scientific work with barely any standards whatsoever, including those that might be used to screen out AI-generated scientific slop.
An empiricist might say that the sum total of these articles simply adds to human knowledge. If only. Many, or even most, published papers serve no purpose whatsoever. They simply appear and … that's it. No one ever cites them in subsequent work; they leave virtually no trace of their existence.
Until, of course, someone convinces a gullible public—or a U.S. senator—that all research currency, new and old, is created equal. Want to make the case that childhood vaccines cause autism? Find a paper in a journal that says as much and, more important, ignore the countless other articles discrediting the same idea. Consumers are already all too familiar with this strategy: News outlets use the same tactic when they tell you that chocolate, coffee, and red wine are good for you one week—but will kill you the next.
Scientists are not immune from picking and choosing, either. They may, for example, assert that there is no evidence for a claim even though such evidence exists—a practice that has been termed ' dismissive citation.' Or they may cite retracted papers, either because they didn't bother checking on those papers' status or because that status was unclear. (Our team built and shared the Retraction Watch Database —recently acquired by another nonprofit—to help address the latter problem.)
The pharmaceutical industry can also play the science-publication system to its advantage. Today, reviewers at the FDA rely on raw data for their drug approvals, not the questionable thumbs-up of journals' peer review. But if the agency, flawed as it may be, has its power or its workforce curbed, the scientific literature (with even greater flaws) is not prepared to fill the gap.
Kennedy has endorsed at least one idea that could help to solve these many problems. At his confirmation hearing, he suggested that scientific papers should be published alongside their peer reviews. (By convention, these appraisals are kept both anonymous and secret.) A few publishers have already taken this step, and while only time will tell if it succeeds, the practice does appear to blunt the argument that too much scientific work is hashed out behind closed doors. If such a policy were applied across the literature, we might all be better off.
Regardless, publishers must be more honest about their limitations, and the fact that many of their papers are unreliable. If they did their part to clean up the literature by retracting more unworthy papers, even better. Opening up science at various stages to more aggressive scrutiny—' red teaming,' if you will—would also help. Any such reforms will be slow-moving, though, and America is foundering right now in a whirlpool of contested facts. The scientific literature is not equipped to bail us out.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

What the 'Big, Beautiful' tax bill means for municipal bonds
What the 'Big, Beautiful' tax bill means for municipal bonds

Yahoo

time23 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

What the 'Big, Beautiful' tax bill means for municipal bonds

JPMorgan raised its forecast for municipal bond sales in 2025 to $560 billion as US lawmakers deliberate over President Trump's "big, beautiful" tax and spending bill in the Senate. Goldman Sachs Asset Management co-head of municipal fixed income Sylvia Yeh weighs in on what policy changes to the US tax code could mean for municipal bond investors, as well as valuation catalysts in comparison to Treasury yields (^TYX, ^TNX, ^FVX). Goldman Sachs manages several municipal bond ETFs (GMUB, GCAL, GMNY, GUMI). To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Catalysts here. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data

TN Republicans' bill would oust officials who release 'confidential' immigration enforcement details
TN Republicans' bill would oust officials who release 'confidential' immigration enforcement details

Yahoo

time38 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

TN Republicans' bill would oust officials who release 'confidential' immigration enforcement details

Top Tennessee Republican lawmakers have proposed a bill that would make it a felony and grounds for removal if public officials jeopardize the safety of federal law enforcement officers or disrupt federal immigration enforcement by revealing confidential operation details. The bill, filed by House Speaker Cameron Sexton and Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson on June 9, comes after a weeklong operation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Nashville in early May. The operation led to hundreds of traffic stops, in coordination with the Tennessee Highway Patrol, and nearly 200 arrests. Nashville Mayor Freddie O'Connell has been under scrutiny from state and federal Republican leaders over his response to the arrests. During the operation, O'Connell updated an existing executive order that requires city departments to report communications with federal immigration officials to the mayor's office, tightening the timeline for those reports. Even in its original version, the executive order included a provision that those communications be posted online for transparency. When O'Connell's office posted that list in late May, it originally included the names of some officials who called. Those names have since been removed from the version of the spreadsheet posted online. During the sweeps in Nashville, O'Connell also repeatedly asked federal officials to release the names and charges of the people arrested, but to no avail. Some community members, meanwhile, were outspoken in their opposition to the operation. Immigrant rights groups and other Nashvillians showed up to protest at Nashville's ICE office not long after the sweeps began on May 4. That opposition extended to further protests several weeks later, an appearance from New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker and a volunteer effort to monitor and verify ICE activity. U.S. Rep. Andy Ogles and other D.C. Republicans have since called for a federal investigation into O'Connell, which was officially initiated on May 30. Meanwhile, Sexton called for O'Connell to rescind his executive order, saying it risks the safety of federal immigration agents. "The people of Tennessee expect their elected leaders to protect law enforcement — not endanger them," Johnson said in a June 9 news release. "When a public official like Mayor O'Connell chooses political activism over public safety, especially by interfering with federal immigration enforcement, he has no business holding office in this state." Johnson said he hopes the legislation "sends a message" to O'Connell and other "blue city" leaders that may act similarly. 'Mayor O'Connell's public refusal to rescind his executive order makes the need for this legislation unmistakably clear to prevent future political defiance that undermines the rule of law and puts law enforcement at risk,' Johnson said in the release. Sexton and Johnson did not provide any examples of O'Connell's interference with immigration enforcement operations. The bill would make it a Class E felony for state or local officials to "negligently release" information that identifies officers tasked with immigration enforcement and paves the way to oust those who violate the law, according to the release. Additionally, it expands provisions under the Tennessee Public Records Act to protect undercover officers and sensitive enforcement activity and beefs up penalties for unauthorized disclosures of protected law enforcement information. The bill is backed by top Senate Republicans, including Lt. Gov. Randy McNally, Speaker Pro Tempore Ferrell Haile, Republican Caucus Chair Ken Yager and Finance Committee Chair Bo Watson. It is set to be taken up in the 2026 legislative session. O'Connell's office had not responded to The Tennessean's request for comment by 11 a.m. on June 10. The move by Tennessee Republicans comes a few days after U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tennessee, introduced legislation to make it illegal to 'dox' federal law enforcement officials. She said the bill is a direct response to the spreadsheet published by O'Connell's office detailing recent communications between city departments with federal immigration agents. Blackburn filed the Protecting Law Enforcement From Doxxing Act on June 4, explicitly naming O'Connell as the impetus. That bill would make it illegal to 'publish the name of a federal law enforcement officer with the intent to obstruct a criminal investigation or immigration operation.' An individual found guilty of doing so would face a fine and imprisonment of five years. In their joint news release on June 9, Sexton and Johnson praised Blackburn's efforts and say their proposed legislation complements her proposal. "Tennessee has always stood with law enforcement and we will not allow politically motivated actors to put officers' lives in danger simply to score political points with the far left," Sexton said in the release. "Tennessee will not become California, and Nashville will not become LA or San Francisco on our watch." Typically, "doxxing" refers to the act of publicly providing personally identifiable information about an individual or organization, usually via the internet, such as their home addresses, private contact information and names of family members. As for the public availability of law enforcement officers' names, they are not typically considered private information. This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: TN bill would punish officials who reveal immigration enforcement details

Auditor general finds F-35 costs soar amid project delays, pilot shortages
Auditor general finds F-35 costs soar amid project delays, pilot shortages

Hamilton Spectator

time43 minutes ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

Auditor general finds F-35 costs soar amid project delays, pilot shortages

OTTAWA - The estimated cost of Canada's incoming fleet of advanced stealth fighters exploded by nearly 50 per cent in just a few years, auditor general Karen Hogan said Tuesday in a new report. The fighter jet audit was one of eight tabled in the House of Commons by Hogan and environment commissioner Jerry DeMarco. The reports flag problematic procurement contracts, a backlog in applications for First Nations status and a delay in reducing the amount of federal office space. An investigation by the auditor general concluded that costs associated with the F-35 advanced fighter jet program are running $8.7 billion higher than the original estimates. And it warns the program is being plagued by delays and critical shortfalls — including a lack of qualified pilots. The report lands in the middle of an active review ordered by Prime Minister Mark Carney to examine possible alternatives to the F-35. He ordered the review in response to U.S. President Donald Trump's trade war with Canada. National Defence said in 2022 the base price for the F-35s would be $19 billion. Just two years later, the number has climbed to $27.7 billion. That estimate does not include figures for infrastructure upgrades or weapons. The report says the department's 2022 estimates relied on outdated data from 2019 — despite the availability of better estimates showing 'that costs of the aircraft had already increased substantially.' The audit says issues associated with the global pandemic — such as runaway inflation, rising costs for facilities and munitions and volatile foreign exchange rates — pushed the price tag sky high. Defence Minister David McGuinty's office sent out a written statement to media that blamed the increased costs on 'external economic conditions driven by the COVID-19 pandemic, including global supply chain disruptions, workforce shortages, and increased inflation and foreign exchange rates.' 'In combination with increased global tensions and related impacts on the availability and demand for materials, we would not have been able to deliver the full scope of this project under our previous budget,' he said in the statement. But Hogan also warned Tuesday that the program faces 'significant risks that could jeopardize the timely introduction of the new fleet.' She said the department successfully identified the risks but has not planned appropriately to mitigate them. Construction of two new fighter squadron facilities — in Cold Lake, Alta., and Bagotville, Que. — is running three years behind schedule. The report says the facilities will not be ready until at least 2031 because the department needs to 'redo important elements' of their design. The department started planning the new facilities in 2020 before the government had settled on the F-35. The aircraft comes with significant infrastructure security requirements. 'Costs to develop an interim solution to support the new jets will further increase infrastructure expenses,' the report warned. It said the department produced a contingency plan to operate the aircraft from temporary facilities but the plan fell short because it was incomplete and offered 'no proposed actions nor a cost estimate.' Canada is also still short of qualified pilots to fly the advanced aircraft — despite being warned about this in 2018. The report said the F-35 program lacks measures to minimize potential risks and the department failed to produce robust contingency plans. It notes that the department identified cost overruns from inflation and currency fluctuations as potential risks to monitor, but plans to track those risks were never approved by officials. The Liberal government announced in 2017 it planned to purchase 88 new fighter jets. It signed a contract with Lockheed Martin for the F-35s in 2023. The modern jets are needed to replace Canada's aging CF-18 fleet, which is nearing the end of its service life. The fighter jets are expected to be delivered between 2026 and 2032. Over the next two years, the initial eight will be sent to a U.S. air force base in Arizona, where Canadian pilots will be trained to fly them. The rest will be delivered to Canada starting in 2028. The report said the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office conducted various assessments that uncovered 'significant issues,' such as 'insufficient departmental engineering personnel to service support equipment for both the CF-18 Hornet and CF-35A during the transition.' The audit said that at the end of the last fiscal year in March, National Defence earmarked $935 million for the U.S. government for the first four jets and related items needed to produce another eight aircraft. It says about $197 million has been paid out already. On top of that, National Defence spent another $516 million on the project, including $270 million in infrastructure costs. This report by The Canadian Press was first published on June 10, 2025.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store