Autism from vaccines? Cloning stem cells? Easy way to create stem cells? These erroneous studies were published in the peer reviewed Lancet, Science and Nature say a couple of scientific journal editors, Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky in a NYT op ed. What's Behind Big Science Frauds
I read scientific papers though I'm not a scientist. I am interested in wildlife issues as they relate to me in the Western United States. Mostly it's not necessary to have any specialized knowledge to follow what is being said, some of the papers are downright readable, and a few even fascinating.
In reading one starts to notice names and who sits on one side of a particular isue and who is on the other and even better who is on neither side, or amenable to changing their thoughts when given new information. One bright spot is that at least with scientists you won't hear them voice discarded ideas in public. Usually if an idea has been fairly universally discredited amongst their peers they won't re use it. Journalists don't have those constraints, they can repeat the equivalent of climate denialism for years.
Scientists also have been known to jump on the bandwagon. There must be a name for that. A couple years ago the senior editor of Conservation Biology was fired. Her crime? Asking writers not to voice advocacy in their articles. Articles that advocate a position tend to get sited by magazine articles a lot more, easy to prove one's point when the peer reviewed article is already in your corner.
Indirectly via membership in a conservation organisation I fund some studies. I've noticed that the studies we fund are also funded by donations from many other government and NGO orgs. Original research is expensive. Usually the scientists are looking for answers to questions, sometimes they can come up with tentative answers, other times not, or maybe answers that only fit that particular set of circumstances. Sometimes the scientists stumble upon data that leads to entirely different answers to unasked questions. So it is with scientific inquiry.
What drives me nuts is when scientists begin with answers and seek to validate them, that's the problem with advocacy. When I see scientists in the Huffington Post voicing strong opinions about their area of research and advocating our government adopt a certain policy how am I supposed to take their work seriously?
Ever seen a thumb on the scale? Does advocacy make you uneasy?