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

Democrats condemn Sen. Alex Padilla's treatment at Noem news conference

time42 minutes ago

Democrats condemn Sen. Alex Padilla's treatment at Noem news conference

Democrats expressed outraged after Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla of California was forcibly removed from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's news conference on Thursday in Los Angeles, taken to the ground and handcuffed by law enforcement officers. Noem was speaking to the media about the federal response to protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in the area when Padilla entered the room and approached Noem's podium. As he approached, police officers in the room grabbed the senator, rushed him out of the room into a hallway, forced him to the ground and handcuffed him. Video shows Padilla identifying himself and saying he wanted to ask a question as law enforcement forced him out of the room. Padilla was later seen without handcuffs speaking to Noem in a conference room. Noem said later that the two spoke for 10 to 15 minutes and exchanged phone numbers. Noem said she didn't expect him to be charged. Noem said law enforcement reacted because he took steps toward her without identifying himself. Video of the incident captures Padilla identifying himself as he is being dragged out; it's not clear if he identified himself before the incident or as he approached the podium. Padilla's Democratic colleagues were critical of the way he was treated. "I just saw something that sickened my stomach -- the manhandling of a United States senator. We need immediate answers to what the hell went on," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said. California Gov. Gavin Newsom called Padilla "one of the most decent people I know." "This is outrageous, dictatorial, and shameful," Newsom wrote on X. "Trump and his shock troops are out of control. This must end now." Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass posted on X, "What just happened to @SenAlexPadilla is absolutely abhorrent and outrageous." The Congressional Hispanic Caucus demanded an investigation into the incident. "This is unacceptable, full stop," the CHC posted on X. "@SenAlexPadilla attended an open press conference to engage in debate, to represent his state, to do his job. We demand a full investigation and consequences for every official involved in this assault against a sitting US senator." DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said Padilla did not identify himself before approaching the podium. "Senator Padilla chose disrespectful political theatre and interrupted a live press conference without identifying himself or having his Senate security pin on as he lunged toward Secretary Noem," she said in a post on X. "Mr. Padilla was told repeatedly to back away and did not comply with officers' repeated commands. @SecretService thought he was an attacker and officers acted appropriately." A statement from Padilla's office said he was in the building to receive a briefing from NORTHCOM commander Gen. Gregory Guillot and was listening to Noem's news conference. "He tried to ask the Secretary a question, and was forcibly removed by federal agents, forced to the ground and handcuffed. He is not currently detained, and we are working to get additional information," the statement said.

Democratic Senator Alex Padilla is forcefully removed from DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's news conference and handcuffed
Democratic Senator Alex Padilla is forcefully removed from DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's news conference and handcuffed

Boston Globe

time42 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Democratic Senator Alex Padilla is forcefully removed from DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's news conference and handcuffed

'I'm Sen. Alex Padilla. I have questions for the secretary,' he shouted in a halting voice. The stunning scene of a U.S. senator being aggressively removed from a Cabinet secretary's news conference prompted immediate outrage from his Democratic colleagues in the chamber. It comes as the Trump administration has aggressively targeted protesters in California who are demonstrating against immigration raids, including by sending in National Guard troops and Marines. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up In a statement, the Department of Homeland Security said Padilla 'chose disrespectful political theater and interrupted a live press conference.' They claimed erroneously that Padilla did not identify himself and said Secret Service believed him to be an attacker. Advertisement 'Padilla was told repeatedly to back away and did not comply with officers' repeated commands,' the statement said, adding that 'officers acted appropriately.' Padilla's office said in a statement that he was in the building for a military briefing and stepped into Noem's event. 'He tried to ask the secretary a question, and was forcibly removed by federal agents, forced to the ground and handcuffed. He is not currently detained, and we are working to get additional information,' his office said. Advertisement California Senator Alex Padilla was pushed out of the room as Noem held a news conference regarding the recent protests in Los Angeles on Thursday. Etienne Laurent/Associated Press Noem told Fox LA afterward that she had a 'great' conversation with Padilla after the scuffle, but called his approach 'something that I don't think was appropriate at all.' The fracas in Los Angeles came just days after Democratic U.S. Rep. LaMonica McIver was indicted on federal charges alleging she assaulted and interfered with immigration officers outside a detention center in New Jersey while Newark's mayor was being arrested after he tried to join a congressional oversight visit at the facility. Democrats have framed the charges as intimidation efforts by the Trump administration. Padilla, the son of immigrants from Mexico, has been a harsh critic of President Donald Trump and his mass deportations agenda. In a post on the social platform X, he said of recent federal immigration raids in Los Angeles, 'Trump isn't targeting criminals in his mass deportation agenda, he is terrorizing communities, breaking apart families and putting American citizens in harm's way.' At the Capitol, senators were sharing the video among one another as they gathered on the Senate floor for a series of votes. Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester, D-Del., said she texted Padilla immediately 'to let him know we support him.' She said she also showed it to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D. 'I think he was as shocked as we all were,' Blunt Rochester said. 'So, hopefully we will come together as one voice.' Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, called the video 'utterly revolting' and said there should be consequences. Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Seung Min Kim in Washington and Jaimie Ding contributed to this report. Advertisement

DeSantis omits references to LGBTQ, Hispanic communities in latest Pulse remembrance
DeSantis omits references to LGBTQ, Hispanic communities in latest Pulse remembrance

The Hill

time43 minutes ago

  • The Hill

DeSantis omits references to LGBTQ, Hispanic communities in latest Pulse remembrance

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) didn't directly reference LGBTQ or Hispanic people in an annual order issued Thursday to honor the victims of the 2016 mass shooting at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, a substantial omission that echoes recent actions by President Trump's administration against diversity and inclusion. DeSantis, who has led the state since 2019 and sought the 2024 Republican nomination for president, has mentioned the LGBTQ and Hispanic communities — the groups most devastated by the attack that killed 49 and injured dozens more — in near identical orders issued during each of his last five years in office. In those statements, DeSantis called the massacre 'a horrific act of terrorism against the LGBTQ and Hispanic communities.' Thursday's order says the attack was 'a horrific act of terrorism' without mentioning any specific groups. In 2019, his first year as governor, DeSantis was forced to issue an amended proclamation after an initial statement that also omitted references to LGBTQ people attracted widespread backlash. He said at the time that he was 'not involved' in drafting the first proclamation and requested his office issue a new one once he became aware of the exclusion. 'Sometimes these things happen, and you've got to correct them,' DeSantis said during a 2019 news conference on an unrelated matter. Multiple spokespersons for the governor did not return a request for comment on this year's omission or say whether the office would issue a new statement. Florida has recognized 'Pulse Remembrance Day' each year on June 12, the date on which the 2016 attack occurred, since its creation in 2018 by former Gov. Rick Scott (R). Now a U.S. senator, Scott said in his original proclamation that the state 'continues to mourn the tragic loss of life and recognize the lasting impact it has on our state and communities, including Florida's LGBTQ community.' In a statement on Thursday, Scott called the shooting, one of the deadliest in U.S. history, 'an act of terror targeting Orlando's LGBTQ and Hispanic communities.' A statement from Sen. Ashley Moody (R-Fla.), Florida's former attorney general who DeSantis appointed to replace Secretary of State Marco Rubio in the Senate in January, makes no mention of LGBTQ or Latino people. DeSantis's decision to delete references to the LGBTQ and Hispanic communities from his annual order mirrors Trump administration efforts targeting diversity and inclusion and LGBTQ rights. References to diverse historical figures, including Jackie Robinson, were removed from government websites in an initial purge related to Trump's executive orders against DEI and 'gender ideology.' Last week, reported that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth plans to rename an oil tanker named for the assassinated gay rights activist Harvey Milk. The Navy is also considering renaming other ships named after prominent civil rights leaders, including Harriet Tubman, Thurgood Marshall and Lucy Stone, according to a CBS News report. DeSantis has also campaigned against diversity efforts, frequently saying that DEI, which stands for 'diversity, equity and inclusion,' actually means 'discrimination, exclusion and indoctrination.' Laws signed during his tenure, including one forbidding classroom instruction on sexuality and gender, have been criticized for targeting the LGBTQ community. 'Governor DeSantis's erasure of the LGBTQ+ and Latino communities today may say a lot about what kind of person he is, but it doesn't change the fact that those were the communities most directly impacted at Pulse,' said Brandon Wolf, a Pulse survivor who serves as spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, a national LGBTQ advocacy organization. 'His erasure doesn't change the fact that families have empty seats at dinner tables, friends have missing faces at birthday parties, and our communities still bear the scars.' 'Today, rather than letting the governor's petty political cowardice write our story, I hope people choose to remember those stolen and impacted, reflect on the costs of violent hate, and recommit to honoring those we loved and lost with action,' Wolf, who lost two friends, Drew Leinonen and Juan Guerrero, in the shooting at Pulse, said in a text message. Florida state Sen. Carlos Guillermo Smith, a Democrat and the first openly gay Latino person elected to the Legislature in 2016, called DeSantis's omission 'a petty slight.' 'The Governor's on again, off again acknowledgment of those impacted by the Pulse shooting shows he cares more about scoring political points in the moment rather than showing authentic solidarity with his own constituents,' Smith said in an emailed statement, speaking on behalf of the LGBTQ rights group Equality Florida, for whom he is a senior adviser. 'Either way it would be a mistake to focus on the Governor's bigotry and exclusion. That's already well-known,' Smith added. 'Today is about remembering the 49 taken by gun violence, as well as remembering the strength and courage of those who survived and the families impacted. They will not be erased.'

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