It has been revealed that the Biden administration intentionally buried “inconvenient” research to justify energy crackdown. Of course, I rarely get shocked to hear that politics is political. But what about when the research authors themselves buried inconvenient data or otherwise obscure data? This doesn't just happen, says the Ph.D. Although he is a scientist with over 20 years of experience, he is actually common in his research. In fact, the paintings drawn by Dr. Lorene Leiter reveal that mainstream science establishment is very similar to our mainstream media establishment.
Describing her background, the writer states that she “had a PhD from Rutgers University and worked at Brigham and Women's Hospital and Massachusetts Institute of Technology.” She also began her scientific career as a young idealist in the starry sky. Her romantic vision was one of the hardships she faced in the basement where figures like Marie Curie pushed back the frontier of knowledge. And the writer made a big discovery:
She learned today that “public or perishing” priorities will beat everything.
“Paper, there's no money for your lab,” the writer wrote to the American thinker on Wednesday. “And Mother Lord for Money (sic) is NIH.”
Yes, it is the National Institutes of Health. It was part of the now infamous Dr. Anthony Foco.
Get a Cat – Hell Lab Mouse refuses to cooperate again
Leiter says the current system guarantees scientific fraud. In fact, she says the incidents of misconduct she observed are legions. As I reported in 2014, please know that she is far from the beginning to make this observation (more on this later).
Common fraud methods associated with Leiter are associated with Joseph Stalin's “airbrush” and “uncooperative” laboratory mice. In other words, if you conduct a survey, you will see that the hypothesis is not supported. However, you will then notice that you can use the Chinese menu method of “change” in the result. Leiter and Voila write “data from two mice in group A and one mouse in group B.” Hypothesis alignment has been achieved and publicly available.
That's not surprising, says Writer, as it may reveal negative consequences that reveal the ineffectiveness of your hypothesis. First of all, it will not be published. Furthermore, it is disastrous for other resource-consuming scientists studying the same hypothesis. (Perhaps a good way to gain non-persona status among colleagues.)
Amazing deception
Leiter also offers several examples of scientific fraud. For example, she writes it
There are interactions that are not featured in the honorable journal. “Discovered?” Molecules A and B combine! It was a major discovery in cancer research. What the Journal didn't know was that A and B were not directly tied up. Instead, they both bind to molecules C, giving them the appearance of A and B directly bonding. Was this proven easily by breaking up kickers? The researchers conducted this experiment before submitting their paper, but Mama is a word for the journal. And you don't know – the paper has brought about a huge grant from the NIH.
And then there is the “smart” gene. We altered genes in the mouse brain to see if they affected intelligence. success! It made them smarter! This study attracted so much attention that David Letterman included it in his actions. But then…
Oops. No one could replicate the results, and a closer look at raw data from smart new researchers revealed the truth. The famous paper was fake.
There are lots of warnings
As mentioned before, Leiter is not alone in playing this whi. As I said in 2014 in “Blind me with science: fraud and fame and stupidity for fundraising”:
BMJ.com (formerly the British Medical Journal) has made many good reports on this topic. (That) Bob Lohr wrote in 2012:
The retraction of biomedical and life science research papers on fraud and illegal activities is more widespread than previously thought, and is about ten times more common than in 1975, suggesting a new study.
This study tallyed the reasons stated in the withdrawal of all 2047s listed in the PubMed Index on May 3, 2012 (sic)At(sic)3. Journal, and also looked at reports submitted to the US government's Office of Research Integrity and other sources. As a result, 118 (16%) of the 742 withdrawals given in previous studies of error-to-fraud withdrawal were reclassified.
Also, in 2012, Aniket Tavare of BMJ saw that one in seven UK-based scientists or doctors intentionally alter or manufacture data for the purposes of research or publication, and found a survey of over 2,700 researchers conducted by BMJ.” Similarly, BMJ's Tony Sheldon wrote just three months later: “A Dutch survey claims that one in seven people saw the results of scientific research invented. In addition, a quarter massaged the massaged data to achieve important results.”
Not so stupid mouse
Furthermore, today's research questions are burned down, Leiter argues. For example, consider that the most commonly used mouse in current studies is the “C57BL/6” variety. These are intentionally inbred rodents (sibling/sister pairings) designed to have no genetic variation. One of the results is a “fixed” recessive gene and a “fixed” mutation. Some of it is dangerous. As the writer writes:
Interestingly, the C57BL/6 mouse is not well heard. They prefer alcohol over water. And they are more prone to obesity. What else is wrong that has not been discovered yet? The defect may not be obvious, but is it affecting the experiment without knowing it?
Leiter lists more points related to the use of these abnormal organisms.
“Rebellious” mice reflect more humans when exhibiting large genetic diversity, but are not usually used. This variation would require much larger sample sizes and much larger financial costs. Laboratory rodents do not see sunlight and have a one-dimensional diet. How does this affect the immune system? Lab mice usually have no toys and suffer from small cages. In other words, there is very little exercise or stimulation. Does this create a mental state (depression?)?
She then gives an example of the problem.
Let's say you discover that a particular diet has made a mouse sick. Was it the meal itself, or did the meal push the mouse up to the edge, as I was not healthy at first? Or what if another diet makes the mice healthier? Were they very sick (not naked eye) something that would improve their health?
Solution
Finally, Leiter presents several possible ways to ameliorate scientific corruption. She states:
First of all, minimizing fraud by setting up labs with the aim of randomly replicating research submitted for presentation. You will never know if you will be chosen, so don't cheat. If you are caught, you will lose your NIH funds.
Second, we abolish “public or perishing” scams that promote fraud and bad science. A good start is being able to publish negative data.
Third – How about think tanks? There is no need to fill in with a doctoral degree. Imagine ideas that could emerge among people from different backgrounds.
Truly, this rot and waste sounds like an issue Elon Musk and Doge should probably address. After all, imagine billions of dollars being wasted on fraudulent research. And is this surprising? In fact, that's something we might expect when combining science with nation.
