Such a distressing yet believable story where ambition overtook integrity … I hope Lancet improves its handling of such case studies.
Great read.
> He asked Rieder about the case.
> “Oh, we made it up,” Rieder replied.
Interesting anecdote. Something to keep in mind.
The idea of an opioid OD from breast milk immensely strains credulity in the first place. Such a claim should really have been put under much more of a microscope.
Humans are fallible. Humans have egos. Humans can be intentionally dishonest.
But the Scientific Method is the only functional bullshit detection system we have. When it is allowed to work, science corrects itself and excises the falsehoods.
It’s a shame that outsized egos within The Lancet and other orgs are still very much in play.
This is a nuanced point that anti-science people often get wrong.
The existence of fraudulent studies, dishonest researchers, the replication crisis, etc. does not invalidate science as an institution. It just means we need to be careful about distinguishing between individual opinions and the scientific consensus. We also need to keep in mind that the consensus is never 100% correct; it's always subject to change and we need to update our beliefs as new evidence comes in.
Ironically, being anti-science is pro-science. Skepticism of institutions and consensus is the scientific method.
The main reason being scientific consensus can lag reality significantly, especially when career incentives discourage dissent. The history of science includes many cases where consensus was wrong and critics were marginalized rather than engaged.
Deference to science as an authority is the opposite.
Feynman has a quote on this:
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. When someone says, 'Science teaches such and such,' he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn't teach anything; experience teaches it. If they say to you, 'Science has shown such and such,' you might ask, 'How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?' It should not be 'science has shown' but 'this experiment, this effect, has shown.' And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments — but be patient and listen to all the evidence — to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at."
>Ironically, being anti-science is pro-science. Skepticism of institutions and consensus is the scientific method
skepticism is necessary, but not sufficient.
if they merely nay-say institutions and then go with their gut, it's certainly not.
only when someone attempts to rationally disprove a position, offering alternate testable theories and actually performing those tests is science done.
if you suspect an institution is wrong, that's fine, but it's just a hunch until someone does a test.
Science as an "institution" serves only to protect egos, fraudsters, and politicians.
When citizen science is ridiculed and "the institution of science" is glorified this is what you get.
And anyone who dares to profess this, is a loony, a conspiracy theorist, an anti-scientific person, etc.