It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why I don't believe in Big Science

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 06:23 AM

(NaturalNews) The vast majority of so-called scientific studies focused on cancer research are inaccurate and potentially fraudulent, suggests a new review published in the journal Nature. A shocking 88 percent of 53 "landmark" studies on cancer that have been published in reputable journals over the years cannot be reproduced, according to the review, which means that their conclusions are patently false.

Learn more here.

In case anyone is wondering why I don't trust the "mainstream scientific community," as far as I can throw it, I offer this report as an example.

When scientists are given corporate funding in order to conduct research, if they want to keep said funding, they make sure that their findings are in line with what their corporate sponsors want to hear. The truth is buried.


"The scientific community assumes that the claims in a preclinical study can be taken at face value," add Begley and his colleague Dr. Lee Ellis in their review. This published research also assumes that "the main message of [papers] can be relied on [...] Unfortunately, this is not always the case."

So much for the revered peer review.
edit on 20-4-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 06:43 AM
reply to post by petrus4

Rumi the Sufi notes the same problem. It was said that Rumi brings agreement to all religions. If you have studied him, his perspective is astonishing. Not only was he a Muslim, he also knew the value of Jesus message of love. His perspective is one of the few that extends beyond an dogma and outward across the whole of spiritual virtue. What he says in the opening of his Discourses matches the problem you outline in the OP. What is most interesting to note is his conclusion. Taking causes a debt in the information that is gathered. Giving produces the reward of what the fruit can provide. The prophet that visits the prince is taking the reward that causes the debt in his own research. Everyone is diminished by this debt. The prophet that has autonomy from the reward offered by the prince gives toward the betterment of the whole.

Rumi stated: Mohammed, the great Prophet, once
said, “The worst of scholars are those who visit
princes, and the best of princes are those who visit
scholars. Wise is the prince who stands at the
door of the poor, and wretched are the poor who
stand at the door of the prince.”
Now, taking the outward sense of these words,
people think that scholars should never visit
princes or they will become the worst of scholars.
That is not the true meaning. Rather, the worst of
scholars are those who depend upon princes, and
who revolve their life and purpose around the
attention and favor of princes. Such scholars take
up learning in hopes that princes will give them
presents, hold them in esteem, and promote them
to office.
Therefore, such scholars improve themselves
and pursue knowledge on account of princes.
They become scholars from their fear of princes.
They subject themselves to the princes’ control.
They conform themselves to the plans that princes
map out for them. So, whether they visit a prince,
or a prince visits them, still in every case they’re
the visitors, and it is the prince who is visited.
However, when scholars do not study to please
princes, but instead pursue learning from first to
last for the sake of truth—when their actions and
words spring from the truth they have learned
and put to use because this is their nature and
they cannot live otherwise—just as fish can only
thrive in water—such scholars subject themselves
to the control and direction of God. They become
blessed with the guidance of the prophets.
Everyone living in their time is touched by them
and derives inspiration from their example,
whether they are aware of the fact or not.
Should such scholars visit a prince, they are
still the ones visited and the prince is the visitor,
because in every case it is the prince who takes
from these scholars and receives help from them.
Such scholars are independent of the prince. They
are like the light-giving sun, whose whole function
is giving to all, universally, converting stones
into rubies and carnelians, changing mountains
into mines of copper, gold, silver and iron, mak-
ing the earth fresh and green, bringing fruit to the
trees, and warmth to the breeze. Their trade is
giving, they do not receive. The Arabs have
expressed this in a proverb: “We have learned in
order to give, we have not learned in order to
take.” And so in all ways they are the visited, and
the prince is the visitor.

posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 08:09 PM
Good find!

Here's a similar recent item from the American Society for Microbiology alleging corruption in science:

The recent explosion in the number of retractions in scientific journals is just the tip of the iceberg and a symptom of a greater dysfunction that has been evolving the world of biomedical research say the editors-in-chief of two prominent journals in a presentation before a committee of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) today....

...In the past decade the number of retraction notices for scientific journals has increased more than 10-fold while the number of journals articles published has only increased by 44%. While retractions still represent a very small percentage of the total, the increase is still disturbing because it undermines society’s confidence in scientific results and on public policy decisions that are based on those results, says Casadevall.

More at source

posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 08:23 PM
I support medicine and health care being socialized as there is no profit in curing anything.

People think welfare or social security or other social programs will destroy America, however we spend 5 times what we spend on defense yet we are the sickest country on Earth..

Something needs to change.

posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 08:25 PM
reply to post by petrus4

When scientists are given corporate funding in order to conduct research, if they want to keep said funding, they make sure that their findings are in line with what their corporate sponsors want to hear. The truth is buried.
Not exactly what the report says. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with with corporate funding. Poor preclinical research helps no one.

"It was shocking," said Begley, now senior vice president of privately held biotechnology company TetraLogic, which develops cancer drugs. "These are the studies the pharmaceutical industry relies on to identify new targets for drug development. But if you're going to place a $1 million or $2 million or $5 million bet on an observation, you need to be sure it's true. As we tried to reproduce these papers we became convinced you can't take anything at face value."

It's the rush to publish in the belief that it will help the researcher which seems to be the problem.

Ferric Fang of the University of Washington, speaking to the panel, said he blamed a hypercompetitive academic environment that fosters poor science and even fraud, as too many researchers compete for diminishing funding.

"The surest ticket to getting a grant or job is getting published in a high-profile journal," said Fang. "This is an unhealthy belief that can lead a scientist to engage in sensationalism and sometimes even dishonest behavior."

The trouble is that when the shoddy research is discovered by those who would provide the funding the futility is exposed and no job. It's a waste of time which could be better spent.

edit on 4/20/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

top topics

log in