Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth

by Stuart Ritchie

For decades, even centuries, many scientists have harboured serious suspicions about the reliability of results and about the system in which those results are produced. But only in the last few years have they amassed stacks of hard data that back up their case. Now, across many fields, we can place high-profile single instances of science going wrong within the wider context of systemic problems, and point to strong meta-scientific data to back up the anecdotes. It’s only recently, in other words, that we’ve had the data that provides a concrete basis for fixing science. No university wants their scientists to be known for their work failing to replicate, or to become embroiled in fraud investigations. Nor do funders: they recognise that if they don’t fund high-quality, replicable research, their money is being wasted and in the long run, they’ll end up looking foolish. Nor do journals: the last thing they or their publishers want is to become a laughing stock, as has happened to some journals that became notorious for publishing flimsy research.109 Reputational concerns are partly what got us into this mess, but if the scandals and shortcomings become sufficiently well known, those same concerns might also help us out of it.