The Dilemma of Trusting Scientific Findings Amidst Skepticism
Written on
Chapter 1: The Pandemic Discourse
During my time in San Francisco throughout the pandemic, discussions about Covid seemed inescapable whenever I met new people. When conversations shifted to public health or political matters, it became evident that many people took pleasure in expressing their disdain for those who “don’t trust science” or “refuse to accept facts.” This shared sentiment appeared to be a badge of belonging.
Despite being considered part of this community—thanks to my background in neuroscience, four years of lab research, and my role as a data scientist—my professional journey has ironically led me to become more skeptical of scientific claims.
It’s important to clarify that my skepticism is not directed at the scientific method itself, a framework that has historically propelled knowledge forward. Rather, my concerns lie with the scientific institutions, such as academic, governmental, and independent organizations that disseminate research commonly regarded as authoritative. People often assume that peer-reviewed studies published in reputable sources are accurate, but I urge caution.
Section 1.1: The Reproducibility Crisis
One of the primary reasons for my skepticism is the troubling issue of reproducibility in research. A pivotal article published in Nature in 2016 revealed that:
“More than 70% of researchers have attempted to replicate another scientist’s experiments unsuccessfully, and over half have failed to reproduce their own work.”
This “Reproducibility Crisis” stems from various factors, including small sample sizes, flawed methodologies, or results that barely meet the threshold for statistical significance. In many instances, the errors are apparent enough that both researchers and even laypeople can often predict which studies will or will not hold up under scrutiny.
Moreover, deliberate actions contribute to this issue. A report from STAT News highlighted that nearly half of all clinical trials involving children either go unpublished or are abandoned. This presents a distorted view of scientific understanding, often leading to vastly different conclusions than what the complete data may suggest.
Section 1.2: Misleading Representations in Research
Even when research is deemed reproducible, significant flaws often exist in how statistics are interpreted and presented. For instance, consider the phrase:
“A new drug cuts your risk of a heart attack in half.”
This statement sounds impressive, yet when rephrased as:
“A new drug reduces your risk of a heart attack from 1% to 0.5%,”
the dramatic effect diminishes. This shift highlights a common tactic known as “mismatched framing,” where the benefits of drugs are often presented in relative terms, while adverse effects are disclosed in absolute terms.
This misrepresentation can extend to the very definition of success in research. In cancer studies, tumor shrinkage has long been used as an indicator of treatment efficacy, a practice that is increasingly questioned. As a 2020 article in Frontiers explains, the assumption that greater tumor reduction universally equates to improved patient survival is fundamentally flawed.
Chapter 2: Questioning the Underlying Hypotheses
When I began researching neurodegenerative diseases in college, the prevailing theory was the “Amyloid Hypothesis,” suggesting that the accumulation of amyloid-beta plaques in the brain leads to neurodegeneration in Alzheimer’s disease. However, over the years, significant issues with this hypothesis have emerged, including a weak correlation between plaque buildup and cognitive decline.
A Scientific American article from 2021 titled, “Alzheimer’s, Inc.: When a Hypothesis Becomes Too Big to Fail,” underscores the substantial financial investments made in targeting amyloid-beta, which have yielded virtually no positive outcomes in clinical trials for over two decades.
The emphasis on drug development rather than foundational research has led to a research culture that prioritizes immediate solutions over understanding underlying disease processes.
Section 2.1: A Call for Transparency and Accountability
I yearn for a society where researchers and clinicians command trust. However, I believe that such trust must be established through rigorous and transparent research practices: thoughtful methodologies, pertinent inquiries, and meaningful success metrics.
Until such standards are met, I will maintain a healthy skepticism towards what is labeled as “science.”
In the video "How I Lost Trust in Scientists," the speaker discusses personal experiences that led to skepticism about scientific findings and the institutions behind them.
The video titled "Trust Science is a BAD Idea" explores the implications of blindly trusting scientific claims without critical evaluation.