Press button to watch video
- "There is a crisis in pre-clinical biomedical research involving laboratory animals. Too many papers publish results which turn out to be irreproducible. One estimate puts the cost at $28 billion being wasted per annum in the United States alone. The causes of this irreproducibility crisis have not been fully identified. But it has been known for many years that experiments are often poorly designed, inadequately analysed, and misreported. A survey of 271 papers chosen at random involving rats, mice and non-human primates showed that 87% did not report random allocation of experimental subjects to the treatments and 86% did not report 'blinding' when measuring the results. None of the papers gave any justification for their choice of sample size, and a substantial number of papers failed even to state the sex, age or weight of the animal." -- Scientist Michael FW Festing (link).
- ""For a common effect size of Hedge’s g= 0.5 (Welch’s independent samples t-test, α=0.05), ten animals per group would correspond to a statistical power of 18%, 30 animals per group to 48% power and 65 animals per group to 81% power...Through a systematic search (Supplementary Notes 1 and 2), we identified a large sample of animal studies in the areas of ‘neuroscience’ and ‘metabolism’ (n...=1,935) that were previously included in meta-analyses (n...=69). These animal studies had an overall median statistical power of 18% (Fig. 1a), which was roughly equal in the two fields (neuroscience, 15%; metabolism, 22%)....We estimated that, at best, 12.5% of a large sample of rodent studies were sufficiently powered (that is, prospective power was larger than 80%). This estimate is a best-case scenario, as it is not yet adjusted for any subsequent multiple testing, experimental bias, P hacking and/or fishing, selective reporting, etc.." -- -- V. Bonapersona and other scientists, "Increasing the statistical power of animal experiments with historical control data" (link).
- "The production of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses has reached epidemic proportions. Possibly, the large majority of produced systematic reviews and meta‐analyses are unnecessary, misleading, and/or conflicted." -- John P.A. Ioannidis, professor of medicine and data scientist (link).
- "When we last visited the lively, ever-evolving world of shady scientific publishing, we saw publication brokers offering journal editors kickbacks to push their papers into print, and here's plenty more about it in a new article here at Science....You too can be a co-author if you just pony up, and if you're an editor, well, you can earn extra cash by slotting these papers into the journal....It's to the point where every journal publisher and every editor will tell you, if they're being honest, that they have been and are continually being offered bribes. I would be very suspicious if someone tried to act shocked at the question, as if they'd never heard of such a thing. This is the state of scientific publishing in the 2020s, and we have to realize it." -- Organic chemist Derek Lowe (link).
- "Cosmologists often make assertions that have little scientific justification. Their language frequently reflects that of a belief system rather than that of a science, and the response of institutional cosmology to reputable scientists who have different interpretations of data or who advance alternative conjectures is too often reminiscent of a Church dealing with dissenters." John Hands MD, "Cosmo Sapiens: Human Evolution From the Origin of the Universe," page 156.
- "One cannot ignore the deep, unanswered question concerning the origin of the baryonic component because baryons and antibaryons should have annihilated almost completely, leaving only a negligible abundance today. Yet we observe a far greater concentration than the standard model of particle physics and the first and second laws of thermodynamics should have permitted. So where did baryons come from?....The standard model currently has no explanation for why the Universe was initially in a very low entropy state (as required by the second law [of thermodynamics]), and for how the CMB acquired such high entropy so soon after the Big Bang.....One cannot avoid the conclusion that the standard model needs a complete overhaul in order to survive....The argument against standard cosmology in its present form continues to grow as several major inconsistencies and inexplicable features resist concerted attempts at resolution...At face value, the standard model of cosmology thus appears to be inconsistent with the first and second laws of thermodynamics, constituting yet another conflict with our fundamental physical theories....This collection of seemingly insurmountable inconsistencies and paradoxes ought to convince even its most diehard supporters that a major overhaul of the standard model is called for." Astronomer Fulvio Melia, "A Candid Assessment of Standard Cosmology," 2022.
- "The fact that most cosmologists do not pay them any attention and only dedicate their research time to the standard model is to a great extent due to a sociological phenomenon (the 'snowball effect' or 'groupthink'). We might well wonder whether cosmology, our knowledge of the Universe as a whole, is a science like other fields of physics or a predominant ideology." --Martın Lopez-Corredoira, "Non-standard Models and the Sociology of Cosmology."
- "Contemporary foundational theoretical physics is largely broken. It offers nothing in which experimentalists can invest any real confidence. Theorists have instead retreated into their own fantasy, increasingly unconcerned with the business of developing theories that connect meaningfully with empirical reality. About forty years ago particle theorists embarked on a promising journey in search of a fundamental description of matter based on the notion of ‘strings’. Lacking any kind of guidance from empirical facts, forty years later string theory and the M-theory conjecture are hopelessly mired in metaphysics, a direct consequence of over-interpreting a mathematics that looks increasingly likely to have nothing whatsoever to do with physical reality. The theory has given us supersymmetric particles that can’t been found. It has given us hidden dimensions that may be compactified at least 10 [to the 500th power] different ways to yield a universe a bit like our own. And at least for some theoretical physicists who I believe really should know better, it has given us a multiverse – a landscape (or swampland?) of possibilities from which we self-select our universe by virtue of our existence...I’m pretty sure there was a time in which this kind of metaphysical nonsense would have been rejected out-of-hand, with theorists acknowledging the large neon sign flashing WRONG WAY....Alas, instead we get a strong sense of the extent to which foundational theoretical physics is broken." Physicist Jim Baggott, in the paper "The sounds of science—a symphony for many instruments and voices: part II."
- "It is now evident that genes play only a minor role in evolution....We now know that the gene-centered Modern Synthesis was quite wrong (see especially Shapiro 2011, 2022; Noble 2012, 2013; Noble and Noble 2023; Corning 2018, 2020). Over the past few decades there has been a growing body of contradictory evidence." Scientist Peter A. Corning (link).