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

France Moves to Curb ‘Ultra-fast' Fashion With Bill Targeting Shein and Temu
France Moves to Curb ‘Ultra-fast' Fashion With Bill Targeting Shein and Temu

Yahoo

time24 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

France Moves to Curb ‘Ultra-fast' Fashion With Bill Targeting Shein and Temu

PARIS — As major brands scale back their sustainability initiatives, France is pressing ahead with legislation aimed at reining in 'ultra-fast fashion' platforms such as Shein and Temu, known for their extremely low-cost clothing. The bill, introduced by Anne-Cécile Violland, a member of parliament from the Horizons party, passed the Senate one year after clearing the lower house of the French Assembly. More from WWD Inditex Sales Slow as Economic Headwinds Hit the High Street Rebag Expands Access to Pre-loved Luxury Goods With New Amazon Collaboration Designer Vincent Van Duysen Opens Antwerp Home for Zara Home+ 4th Collection The unusually long gap between votes led to some watering down of the original provisions, exempting traditional fast-fashion players such as H&M, Primark, and Inditex-owned Zara. 'It's a relief that it moved forward, but there has been a shift in the goal of the legislation that it is now specifically targeting what is called 'ultra-fast fashion,'' said Pierre Condamine, spokesperson for the Anti Fast Fashion Coalition, an umbrella group of 11 environmental organizations in France. Earlier drafts had adopted a broader definition of fast fashion that included Europe-based brands. 'There is sort of a shift in what was supposed to be an environmental legislation, with the objective to shift the whole sector towards sustainable practices, while now it's sort of becoming a protectionist text,' he told WWD. The revised bill targets ultra-fast fashion directly, proposing a tax on small parcels shipped from outside the EU ranging from 2 to 4 euros per package. The fee is intended to slow the influx of packages from Chinese platforms to France, in a move reminiscent of the U.S. ending its de minimis exemption. Shein and Temu together shipped 800 million packages to France in 2024 — more than half of all parcels sent to the country. The French government will first notify the European Commission, as several measures, including a total advertising ban on ultra-fast-fashion platforms, require approval at the EU level. This process could take up to three months before the bill goes to the Assembly and Senate joint committee for resolution, likely in the fall in late September or October. Several key provisions may face scrutiny in Brussels, including the parcel fee, which could conflict with the European Commission's plan for a bloc-wide fee by 2028, and the proposed national advertising ban. Although Shein is registered in Singapore, its European headquarters in Ireland could present a legal loophole. As it stands, the bill mandates eco-contributions from fashion companies based on a 'bonus-malus' system — rewarding sustainable practices and penalizing environmental harm. Penalties could rise to 10 euros per item by 2030, though the methodology for valuing items has yet to be defined. The bill would also eliminate tax advantages for 'donating' unsold stock by ultra-fast-fashion brands, which are not permitted to destroy unsold items under an anti-waste law passed in 2020. A critical element of the bill is its specific definition of 'ultra-fast' or 'ultra-express' fashion. This distinction leaves out more traditional fast-fashion companies that have a retail presence like H&M, Primark and Zara. By differentiating between ultra-fast platforms and fast-fashion brands with physical retail locations, the legislation potentially creates a loophole for companies headquartered in Europe — Sweden, Ireland and Spain respectively — even though their production relies heavily on low-wage countries like China, India and Bangladesh via subcontractors and diffuse supply chains. The original bill passed by the Assembly featured the broader definition, but companies lobbied intensively over the past year for the narrower language, arguing that they contribute to local employment. Senator Sylvie Valente Le Hir of Les Républicains, who ushered the bill through the Senate, highlighted its targeted approach: 'We have drawn a clear line between those we want to regulate — ultra-express fashion — and those we want to preserve, accessible but rooted fashion, which employs in France, which structures our territories, which creates links and supports a local economic fabric,' she said. The industry group La Fédération Française du Prêt à Porter Féminin praised the bill as a 'step forward' in tackling ultra-fast fashion. 'It formalizes the long-standing collective commitment of many stakeholders to defend a fashion industry that respects workers, consumers, citizens, French businesses, and the planet,' the organization said in a statement. However, Condamine noted that while large global fast-fashion retailers remain profitable – Zara's parent company Inditex reported sales were up 4.2 percent in constant-currency in the first quarter on Wednesday — French high street brands like Camaieu and NafNaf have entered administration, and independent stores continue to shutter. 'The economic crisis in the clothing industry in France, it started way before Shein,' Condamine said. 'It started when fast fashion — Zara, H&M, Primark — arrived. Now they are saying if they're targeted, it will be a catastrophe [for jobs]. But they're doing great economically, and they're part of the problem.' Some lawmakers described the bill as a 'strong first signal' and indicated that fast fashion as a whole — including the European players with physical presence — could face future regulation due to unsustainable business practices. On the other hand, critics — chiefly Shein — have said the legislation punishes cost-conscious consumers and lower-income households. The company, which markets itself under the slogan 'Fashion is a right, not a privilege,' has staged events in French cities like Béziers. On Sunday, its director of government relations, Fabrice Layer, held a presentation in front of the southeastern town's city hall to rally public support for the company. 'We ultimately find ourselves with a law that is not only anti-Shein, but anti-Shein customer,' Quentin Ruffat, Shein's spokesperson in France, told AFP. 'This law, if passed, will directly penalize our customers' wallets and drastically reduce their purchasing power.' The company has also accused France's fashion establishment of protecting legacy brands and says it will continue lobbying to amend the bill further. Shein representatives did not respond to requests for comment. New research from l'Institut Français de la Mode (IFM) shows that in the first quarter of 2025, Amazon, Shein and Temu together accounted for 24 percent of online apparel sales by value, representing 7 percent of total apparel consumption across all channels. Online sales made up 29.4 percent of apparel purchases by value, including the online stores of traditional retailers. Best of WWD Walmart Calls California Waste Dumping Lawsuit 'Unjustified' Year in Review: Sustainability's Biggest Controversies of 2021 Year in Review: Sustainability's New Strides

History Shows the Danger of Trump's Health Policies
History Shows the Danger of Trump's Health Policies

Yahoo

time24 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

History Shows the Danger of Trump's Health Policies

U.S. President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. attend an event in the East Room of the White House on May 22, 2025 in Washington, DC. Credit - Chip Somodevilla—Getty Images On May 11, 2023, President Joseph Biden ended the COVID-19 public health emergency, calling an finish to the pandemic. By the end of 2023, COVID-19 claimed the lives of over 20 million people around the world. But through international cooperation and evidence-based science, vaccines were developed and the world moved on. Indeed, perhaps the biggest success of the period was the quick production of a COVID-19 vaccine. The research behind the mRNA vaccine had been ongoing since the 1970s, but the emergency of the pandemic and international sharing of knowledge helped bring the vaccine to fruition. Today, the COVID-19 vaccine has been credited with saving 2.4 million lives around the world. But now, the U.S. is choosing competition over cooperation. With President Donald Trump's day one executive order to leave the World Health Organization (WHO)—blaming their COVID-19 response—and the shuttering of USAID, the country is taking steps towards further dividing health efforts across the globe. Here in the U.S., a sudden end to $11.4 billion of covid-related grants is stifling national pandemic preparedness efforts on the local and state levels. And most recently, Health and Human Services Secretary RFK Jr. purged experts from the CDC Advisory Committee, putting lives at risk. Historical lessons demonstrate the need for global health infrastructure that works together, shares knowledge, and remembers that pathogens do not stop at borders. White House's Pandemic Office, Busy With Bird Flu, May Shrink Under Trump One of the greatest global health achievements of all time—smallpox eradication—provides a perfect example of what can be done with independent scientific research and international cooperation. During the Cold War between the U.S. and USSR, decades of tension brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. Yet, incredibly, the nations managed to find common ground to support the efforts of smallpox eradication. Indeed, they understood the strategic benefits that came from letting public health practitioners and scientists work outside of political divides. The WHO was founded after World War II in 1948. Its formation marked a move from international health, that focused on nations, to global health, that would serve humanity first. The WHO's first eradication effort was the failed, U.S.-backed, Malaria Eradication Program from 1955 to 1969. The Smallpox Eradication Program, with intensive efforts beginning in 1967, provided a chance for redemption for the U.S. and WHO. For the United States, investing in disease eradication and poverty helped to mitigate growing backlash against the Vietnam War. In June of 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson stated, 'I propose to dedicate this year to finding new techniques for making man's knowledge serve man's welfare.' He called for 1965—the same year he ordered ground troops to Vietnam to stop the spread of communism —to be a year of international cooperation that could bypass the politics of the Cold War. Previously, the USSR did not participate in the U.S. and WHO's first, failed global eradication plan for malaria. But upon rejoining the WHO in 1956, it was the Soviets who made the first call and investment into global eradication of smallpox in 1958. The WHO functioning as a mediator was crucial to allowing the USSR and the U.S. to work together. It allowed both nations to avoid giving credit to each other; rather success went to science itself. President Johnson called this 'a turning point' away from 'man against man' towards 'man against nature.' The limited role of politicians in the program proved to be key to its success. Scientists made decisions and worked together—no matter what country they came from—by focusing on disease and vaccination, not international tensions. The Soviet-initiated program was lead by Donald A. Henderson, a U.S. epidemiologist, who worked alongside the Russians until the last case of smallpox occurred in Somalia on October 26, 1977. During the 20th century, smallpox was responsible for an estimated 300 to 500 million deaths. Smallpox was officially declared eradicated by the WHO in October 1980, and is today still the only human disease to achieve this distinction. Less than a year after the declaration of smallpox eradication, the emergence of another pandemic, the HIV/AIDS crisis, reinforced the importance of science-first cooperation over politically-driven decision making. In June 1981, the first cases of a new unknown disease were reported in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. In short order, gay men were stigmatized and blamed in what would become one of the biggest public health disasters of all time. It took years of grassroots science-based activism to move beyond HIV/AIDS victim-blaming and find medical solutions. The Poster Child for AIDS Obscured as Much About the Crisis as He Revealed Too often, governments across the globe placed blame on the gay community for their 'sins' and did not provide needed support, leaving the sick to suffer and die. The pharmaceutical companies profited from the limited medications they had available and did not pursue sufficient development. The FDA process for new drugs was scheduled to take nine years, at a time when life expectancy after receiving an HIV/AIDS diagnosis was one year. These issues sparked activism, spawning the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP) in 1987. ACT UP organizers took science into their own hands and began educating themselves. Members began reading scientific journals religiously, learning the chemistry and epidemiology of drug manufacturing and clinical trials. Members learned how to translate these dense scientific messages to educate the community members on what was—and what was not—being done to help. Because of this work, the FDA changed policies to allow for new treatments to be tested at accelerated rates in times of emergency. ACT UP was able to shift the cultural blame showing that the issue was a result of politics getting in the way of scientific advancements. By 1990, ACT UP influenced the largest federal HIV program to pass Congress, the Ryan White CARE Act. This program was a vital precursor to the 2003 PEPFAR (The U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) global initiative. Both of these histories offer a powerful lesson: global health is national health, and national health is local health. With the recent funding cuts from the U.S. government, the future of global health is going in an unknown direction. And yet, the occurrence of pandemics is expected to increase in frequency due to climate change, mass migration, urbanization, and ecosystem destruction. It has been estimated that there is about a 25% chance we will have another COVID-sized pandemic within the next 10 years. No matter how secure the world makes borders, history shows that it can not protect us from disease if we do not have a strong, interconnected public health infrastructure. Luke Jorgensen is a Master of Public Health student at Purdue University where his epidemiology research examines human migration and infectious disease. Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors. Write to Made by History at madebyhistory@

Stablecoin bill clears another hurdle in Senate, inching toward final vote
Stablecoin bill clears another hurdle in Senate, inching toward final vote

The Hill

time30 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Stablecoin bill clears another hurdle in Senate, inching toward final vote

The Senate voted Wednesday to advance legislation setting up a regulatory framework for payment stablecoins, bringing the crypto bill one step closer to a final vote in the upper chamber. Seventeen Democrats voted with almost every Republican to end debate on an updated version of the GENIUS Act. The new bill text was reached as part of lengthy negotiations between Republicans and crypto-friendly Democrats last month, ahead of an earlier procedural vote on the Senate floor last month. The vote breakdown was largely similar to the May vote, although Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) switched her vote to oppose the measure. She had supported the bill both in the Senate Banking Committee in March and on the Senate floor last month. Blunt Rochester voiced some hesitation Tuesday about Senate leadership's decision to forgo an open amendment process on the GENIUS Act, emphasizing that she hoped to see additional changes to the bill. 'I was really clear,' she told The Hill. 'I hoped that there would be an open amendment process, and that's what I heard Leader Thune say around last month, so I will take a look at this language, and we'll make a decision from there.' Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) ultimately scrapped the push for so-called 'regular order,' as controversial amendments — most notably, Sen. Roger Marshall's (R-Kan.) Credit Card Competition Act — threatened to upend support for the bill. The decision to move forward without an open amendments process frustrates a push by several Democrats to add in a provision that would prevent President Trump and other elected officials from profiting off stablecoins. 'The GENIUS act attempts to set up some guardrails for buying and selling a type of cryptocurrency, one type called a stablecoin,' Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said on the Senate floor ahead of Wednesday's vote. 'Well, we need guardrails that ensure that government officials aren't openly asking people to buy their coins in order to increase their personal profit or their family's profit,' he continued. 'Where are those guardrails in this bill? They're completely, totally absent.' However, crypto-friendly Democrats who have been deeply involved in negotiations are urging their colleagues to support the bill despite some of its shortcomings. 'It's extremely unhelpful that we have a president who's involved in this industry, and I would love to ban this activity, but that does not diminish the excellent work of this legislation,' Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday. 'It does not diminish the hard work that bipartisan group of senators put into this to make a difference and to write a law that can protect consumers, that can protect our financial services industry, that can protect the strength of the dollar, and that can protect people who would like access to capital,' she added. The GENIUS Act likely faces a handful more votes before it can clear the Senate and head to the House. Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) told The Hill on Tuesday that she expects a final vote on the bill next week.

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