I recently read a very interesting book called Science Under Siege. The authors are Peter Hotez, pediatrician and vaccine researcher at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, Texas and Michael Mann, the prominent climate researcher who found strong evidence for manmade global warming. It is an excellent book and I highly recommend reading it. Public confidence in science has significantly declined since the pandemic, but the majority of polls continue to show strong support for science (see this link to the Pew Research Center). On the other hand, there is a well funded, sophisticated effort to discredit science and scientists. Many people do not understand how science is done, how it is funded, and its contributions to society. In this post I will write about all of those things, as well as the people and groups who are funding the assault on science and scientists.

What is the Scientific Method?

The scientific method is a systematic way to advance knowledge. Here are the steps of the scientific method: This excellent formulation is copied from a webpage from American Journal Experts.

1. Define a question: Constructing a clear and precise problem statement that identifies the main question or goal of the investigation is the first step. The wording must lend itself to experimentation by posing a question that is both testable and measurable.
2. Gather information and resources: Researching the topic in question to find out what is already known and what types of related questions others are asking is the next step in this process. This background information is vital to gaining a full understanding of the subject and in determining the best design for experiments. 
3. Form a hypothesis: Composing a concise statement that identifies specific variables and potential results, which can then be tested, is a crucial step that must be completed before any experimentation. An imperfection in the composition of a hypothesis can result in weaknesses to the entire design of an experiment.
4. Perform the experiments: Testing the hypothesis by performing replicable experiments and collecting resultant data is another fundamental step of the scientific method. By controlling some elements of an experiment while purposely manipulating others, cause and effect relationships are established.
5. Analyze the data: Interpreting the experimental process and results by recognizing trends in the data is a necessary step for comprehending its meaning and supporting the conclusions. Drawing inferences through this systematic process lends substantive evidence for either supporting or rejecting the hypothesis.
6. Report the results: Sharing the outcomes of an experiment, through an essay, presentation, graphic, or journal article, is often regarded as a final step in this process. Detailing the project’s design, methods, and results not only promotes transparency and replicability but also adds to the body of knowledge for future research.
7. Retest the hypothesis: Repeating experiments to see if a hypothesis holds up in all cases is a step that is manifested through varying scenarios. Sometimes a researcher immediately checks their own work or replicates it at a future time, or another researcher will repeat the experiments to further test the hypothesis.

This is clearly not an easy process. There must be transparency at every step so that other researchers can evaluate the methods and repeat the experiments to be sure they get the same results.

How are scientific findings published?

Once results are obtained from a scientific study, a paper describing the results is prepared by the authors. There are usually several authors for any scientific paper. The principal investigator prepares the initial draft and sends it to his/her colleagues. There are usually many drafts and modifications before a final paper is ready to submit. The final paper as agreed upon by the authors is submitted to a peer reviewed scientific journal. The paper is first reviewed by the editor of the journal. If the editor feels there is significant problem with the paper or if he/she thinks it is not appropriate for readers of the journal then the editor can reject the paper. If the paper passes editorial review, then it is sent to at least 3 scientists in the same field for evaluation. These are called peer reviewers. Each reviewer writes a review of the paper, which are sent to the editors of the journal and to the authors of the paper. The reviewers often suggest modifications to the paper. The journal editor may reject the paper based on the reviewers comments, may suggest that modifications be made and the paper be resubmitted, or much more rarely may accept the paper for publication based on positive reviews from the peer reviewers.

As I can attest from my own numerous scientific publications, the acceptance of a paper by a peer reviewed journal is a long and rigorous process. I have also had papers rejected by the editor and after review by peer reviewers.

Very rarely, investigators publish papers based on fraudulent data. This is usually discovered eventually and the editors then publicly retract the paper. This happened to Andrew Wakefield with his publications about a connection between MMR vaccine and autism in the medical journal the Lancet. All of these papers were found to be based on fraudulent data and were retracted. He actually lost his medical license in the UK because of this. Subsequent large very well designed studies showed no connection between vaccines and autism. This is an example of how the scientific method advances knowledge.

Double blind randomized controlled trials

This kind of trial is the gold standard of scientific research. Subjects for the research are recruited and are randomly assigned to either the experimental group or the control group. Great care is taken to be sure that the selection for either group is completely random. The size of the two groups has to be large enough to ensure that any factors that might bias the results should be balanced out in the two groups by the random selection. The intervention being tested (usually a medicine or other treatment) is given to the experimental group and an identical placebo (inactive) pill or intervention is given to the control group. The investigators administering the treatment don’t know whether they are administering the experimental treatment or the placebo, and they also don’t know which people are in the experimental or the control group. That’s why this kind of trial is called “double blind.” The code for which patients got the experimental treatment and which got the placebo treatment is not broken until the end of the trial. Double blind randomized controlled trials give the most reliable bias free results, but they are very expensive to conduct. There are other kinds of trials as well, because not every research question lends itself to a randomized controlled trial. Almost all well designed research is expensive to conduct. In the next section I will write about how research is funded.

How research is funded

Most research is conducted at academic institutions. Funding for research has to cover the salaries of the researchers and their staff, and the research infrastructure of the institution. All of that is very expensive. Almost all research is funded by grants, either federal (National Institutes of Health (NIH) or National Science Foundation (NSF) or private foundations. Most large grants are federal.

Grant application process

Some grants are designed for application by institutions themselves but most grants are applied for by research scientists. Application for a scientific grant is a major involved process. There is a 12 page limit for the main application for an NIH grant, but supplementary documents required like budgets and investigator bio sketches can run to 150 pages. Each federal grant application is evaluated by a study section composed of eminent scientists in the field. Funding is only available for a small number of grants so most grant applications are rejected. If the study section gives the grant a good score the grant may be awarded to the institution or the investigator. Even if the grant is awarded to the investigator, the grant money is administered by the institution. It never goes directly to the investigator. A percentage of each grant is used by the institution to pay for its research infrastructure. The rest is used by the institution to pay the investigator’s salary and to pay for the costs of the research. Private foundations each have their own rules for grant applications, but they are also difficult to get. Grants from private foundations are usually, but not always smaller than federal grants.

Are scientific results truth?

Science is a systematic way to search for truth about how the world works and how we can successfully manipulate it to get desired results. It is a mistake to put too much emphasis on the results of one study. When many studies find the same or similar results, we have increasing confidence that the results represent truth, but never absolute. Scientific results are always to some degree provisional. That does not mean they are not useful.

Benefits of science to society

Rather than enumerate the benefits, here is a link to a University of California website that explains the benefits much better than I can. As the webpage points out, the benefits of science to society are substantial.

Attacks on science and scientists

Because science is a systematic search for knowledge, the findings of some scientific studies are often inconvenient for certain groups or individuals with ideological beliefs. Some scientific findings also threaten some wealthy people whose wealth comes from industries that scientific results threaten. The fossil fuel industry, for example, has created huge wealth for companies and individuals. Climate science has clearly shown that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels is causing rapid global warming that will be catastrophic if CO2 emissions are not drastically reduced. Scientific research has also been instrumental in developing alternative energy sources such as solar, wind, and others that have become economically viable. The fossil fuel industry has invested tremendous amounts of money to attack these findings. They work at creating the idea that these well validated scientific results are controversial. They hire people with academic credentials who question that CO2 emissions are causing climate change. This kind of opposition research is rarely published in peer reviewed journals. Front groups are created as well as PACs to lobby legislators that are funded without revealing the source of those funds. This is so-called dark money, but it has been shown to come primarily from people who get their wealth from fossil fuels. Koch industries is a good example. There also is a large industry that promotes supplements, vitamins, and alternative medicines that have no basis in science. This industry attacks legitimate health research as well as proven preventive treatments, particularly vaccines for children and adults.

These attacks on science are sophisticated, coordinated, and so far unfortunately very effective. In addition prominent scientists have been subpoenaed to appear before hostile congressional committees, harassed and threatened with arrest and/or bodily harm. These things are well documented in the book by Hotez and Mann.

Bottom Line

Science is a systematic way to advance knowledge. As results are validated by multiple well designed studies we find out more about the world and how to manipulate it to our benefit. Publication of scientific results in peer reviewed journals is a difficult and rigorous process. Almost all science is done in academic institutions and is almost entirely funded by federal grants and grants from private foundations. Obtaining grant funding is also a very rigorous process. Grants are administered by institutions and grant money is never given directly to investigators.

Wealthy people who stand to lose money because of scientific findings are conducting a sophisticated, well funded campaign to attack scientific results they don’t like and to discredit, harass, and threaten legitimate scientists.