Rama
The differences in perception of science by conservatives and leftists is fascinating.Stand up for science! We saw these rallies across the United States on March 7th to protest cuts in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. But should we blindly believe the science? No — and how do I know?
I was a scientist in academia for over 20 years. I earned a Ph.D. from Rutgers University and worked at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
My dreams of what it was like to be a scientist were shattered early on. I had envisioned a world with me in the basement with the likes of Marie Curie making exciting discoveries. Instead, I encountered a world where career advancement trumped a pursuit of the truth, a world where “publish or perish” ruled the day. No paper, no money for your lab. Period. And the motherlode for money is the NIH.
The system invites bad science and cheating. I could write endlessly about the cheating I observed. One common way is to simply toss out mice that didn’t “cooperate.” Namely, you had a hypothesis, did the experiment, but didn’t get a statistical difference. But, you think, if I toss out the data from two mice in Group A and one in Group B, I’d have a difference. Yay! Let’s publish!
You might be asking, “Why not publish the negative results — you had a good hypothesis, but it didn’t work out?” Because — prepare for the insanity –you cannot publish “negative data.” Bad for you (no paper) and bad for Dr. Smith across the pond who is currently wasting time and money doing the exact same experiment (yes, you weren’t the only one with that hypothesis).
Then there’s the interaction that wasn’t — published in a prestigious journal. The “discovery?” Molecules A and B bound together! It was a big discovery in cancer research. What the journal didn’t know was A and B never bound directly. Instead, they both bound to Molecule C, giving the appearance that A and B bound directly. This was easily proven by dissolving C. The kicker? The researcher did this experiment before submitting the paper, but mum’s the word to the journal. And wouldn’t you know — that paper resulted in a big grant from the NIH.
And then there’s the “smart” gene. A gene in mouse brains was altered to see if it affected intelligence. Success! It made them smarter! The study got so much attention that David Letterman included it in his act. But then…
Oops. No one could reproduce the results, and a close look at the raw data by a clever new researcher revealed the truth — the famous paper was bogus.
Not everyone cheats, of course, but cheating is common. I doubt many people start out with intention of being dishonest. The problem is the whole “publish or perish” system and the dependence on NIH funding. It needs to change.
As does the questionable models. Take mice, for example. C57BL/6 are the most commonly used mice in research ranging from cancer to neuroscience. These mice have been inbred (brother-sister mating) for decades in order to eliminate genetic variability. The result was “fixed” double dominant or double recessive genes, as well “fixed” mutations.
<img alt captext="Rama” class=”post-image-right” src=”https://conservativenewsbriefing.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/how-science-lies.jpg” width=”450″>Do you see any problems? Most double recessives are thought to be harmless (e.g., blue eyes), but they can also be dangerous (e.g., cystic fibrosis). Interestingly, C57BL/6 mice don’t hear well; they prefer alcohol to water; and they are more prone to obesity. What else is wrong that has yet to be discovered? The defect may not be overt, but is it affecting your experiment without you even knowing it?
So why use these mice? Would you even consider a study in inbred humans? The justification is consistency and conformity, which are prioritized over recessive flaws or mutations. C57BL/6 mice must match genetically to minimize variables and to compare results with research around the world. And if that means having some undesirable genes, so be it.
Why not use “outbred” mice, which are more like humans in their genetic diversity? The answer is “noise” and money. Too much variability (noise) means you’ll need a much bigger sample size (just like humans). Therefore, conformity and cost are prioritized over natural conditions. Outbred mice are used in certain experiments, but they aren’t nearly as common as inbred mice.
To make matters even more unrealistic, no laboratory rodent sees daylight — ever. Is that natural? How about eating the same food every day? Wouldn’t this affect their microbiome, which we now know plays a crucial role in the immune system and many other things?
And to reduce variables, lab mice typically have no toys to play with. No toys and sitting in small cages = very little physical exercise and very little stimulation. Might this cause anxiety or depression? Is this realistic to a human’s life?
What’s the difference, you might ask, if you get a result? Good question. Here’s an example:
Suppose you discover that a certain diet made a mouse sicker. Was it the diet itself, or did the diet push the mouse over the edge because it wasn’t healthy to begin with? Or what if another diet made the mice healthier? Were they so sick (albeit not to the naked eye) that just about anything would improve their health?
Why, you may wonder, don’t we have a cure for diseases like Alzheimer’s and terminal cancers after decades of research and billions of dollars in NIH funding?
The whole system needs to change. For starters, minimize cheating by perhaps setting up a lab with the purpose of randomly reproducing studies submitted for publication. You never know if yours will be picked, so you better not cheat. If you’re caught, you’ll lose your NIH funding.
Second, abolish the “publish or perish” scam that encourages cheating and bad science. A good start is being able to publish negative data.
Third — how about a think tank? We don’t have to fill it with Ph. Ds –just great minds — brilliant, imaginative people who think outside the box. Why not mull over the data we have to date and see what we can learn, especially with cross-pollination? Imagine ideas that could emerge among people from all different backgrounds — biology, physics, engineering, and even that brilliant guy working at Walmart.
The differences in perception of science by conservatives and leftists is fascinating. Conservatives are often skeptical, and for this, the Left calls them “science deniers.” People on the Left tend to believe all science without question.
Conservatives, you are wise to be skeptical, so do wear those insults from the Left as a badge of honor.
Image: Rama
