Some scientific journals are publishing articles by anti-technology activists without disclosing their blatant financial conflicts of interest. Despite all the pleas for transparency, the problem is getting worse.
According to pharmacologist Ray Dingledine, good science is hard to do because of (1) "our drive to create a coherent narrative from new data, regardless of its quality or relevance"; (2) "our inclination to seek patterns in data whether they exist or not"; and (3) our negligence to "always consider how likely a result is regardless of its P-value." The good news is that this can be fixed.
Though we're often told that with every new digital health product, medication or device, biotech firm or health-system launch how "groundbreaking," "revolutionary" or "disruptive" it is, here's an ongoing medical reality that actually is just those things.
In a world where we can no longer distinguish truth from lies and science itself has been redefined, non-scientists can claim to be scientists. And our writer is the Queen of England.
With drones, discovery in science and medicine makes the sky – and now the sea – the limit.
Using data on scientific citations and impact, a group of scientists reflect on what makes for innovative science in the hopes of crafting a formula.
The stated mission of 314 Action, a group that supports scientists in their bids for U.S. congressional seats, is laudable. Among its objectives is a desire to "elect more leaders ... from STEM backgrounds." However, if you're a Republican don't expect much action at all.
The war on science has at least three fronts. First, there is the widely reported political war on science, widely and erroneously believed to be waged exclusively by conservatives, when in reality, progressives are just as eager to throw science under the bus when it suits their agenda. (ACSH President Hank Campbell and I wrote an entire book about this topic, called Science Left Behind.) As a general rule, when science and political activists clash, the activists usually win.
A grassroots science movement has amassed a gigantic following on social media, which in turn has resulted in substantial mainstream media coverage. The site, still in development, states that "anyone who values empirical science" can participate. That's good. Unfortunately, other statements are sending mixed messages.
A high-profile paper published in Science earlier this year is in jeopardy because of events that started out with a theft of a laptop may end up being a big enough transgression to have it erased from the scientific literature. Meanwhile, the paper on microbeads has a major problem, one that the journal is taking its time dealing with.
Unbeknownst to David Seidemann, a Brooklyn College geology professor and ACSH scientific advisor, he was placed on a "hit list" by the academic politically-correct mafia. In an article for Minding the Campus, Prof. Seidemann recalls a chilling tale in which he was investigated by the administration for alleged misconduct.
How should scientists respond to the rising tide of anti-scientific sentiment in the world? The backlash against modern technology is widespread: Protests against genetic engineering, vaccines and "chemicals" are just some of the areas of concern. What can scientists do to address this problem?