The hottest Research Ethics Substack posts right now

And their main takeaways
Category
Top World Politics Topics

Trump Or No, Science Badly Needs To Look Inward And Heal Itself

Singal-Minded • 1406 implied HN points • 10 Feb 25
🔬 Science Research Ethics Scientific Integrity Public Trust
  1. There are serious problems in Alzheimer’s research, including fraud and negligence, which make it hard to trust the current science. Many studies are flawed, yet the same theories keep getting pushed.
  2. Public trust in science is declining, partly because people see failures in mainstream research. People need to question and hold science accountable instead of just believing it blindly.
  3. Scientific institutions must work harder to self-correct and ensure quality in research. If they don't, they risk losing more trust and could make it easier for anti-science forces to gain influence.

Francis Collins retires from the NIH

Vinay Prasad's Observations and Thoughts • 128 implied HN points • 03 Mar 25
🏥 Health Politics Public Health Biotechnology Policy Analysis Epidemiology Research Ethics
  1. Francis Collins helped find the cystic fibrosis gene, which saved many lives. However, his support for gain of function research and certain policies during the pandemic raised concerns.
  2. Many believe that the impact of Collins' leadership during the pandemic was negative, leading to loss of trust in science and vaccination. His actions may have contributed to millions of deaths and economic losses.
  3. Collins did not explore if the way the NIH gives out grant money was effective. Despite advancements in genetics, many common health issues remain largely unresolved.

Pandemic Censorship Spurs Trump Research Nominees and Others to Create “Journal of the Academy of Public Health”

The DisInformation Chronicle • 885 implied HN points • 05 Feb 25
🏥 Health Politics Public Health Research Ethics Censorship Health Communication
  1. A new journal aims to improve communication in public health and share a variety of expert opinions. This is important since many voices were silenced during the pandemic.
  2. The journal will pay peer reviewers for their work, making the process fairer and more efficient. This could help improve the quality of published research.
  3. By publishing peer reviews alongside articles, the journal hopes to promote openness in scientific discussions. This can help challenge the existing norms and biases in traditional scientific publishing.

Do you need permission from the government to do independent research?

DYNOMIGHT INTERNET NEWSLETTER • 1015 implied HN points • 13 Feb 25
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Government Regulation Research Ethics Law Public Policy Human Rights
  1. You don't always need government approval to do research on people. Many people believe IRB approval is required for all human research, but that's not true.
  2. The rules about what kind of research needs approval are complicated and can vary by state or institution. It's not always clear where the lines are drawn.
  3. Many journals require IRB approval to publish research, which can make it harder for independent researchers to share their findings without going through the process.

Given FARA, were US Public Health Administrators and US-Based NIAID-Funded Researchers Working Illegally on Behalf of Other Nations?

Popular Rationalism • 534 implied HN points • 21 Oct 24
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Public Health Research Ethics Government Accountability Foreign Relations
  1. U.S. public health officials and researchers may have acted in ways that helped foreign countries, especially China, instead of focusing solely on American interests. This raises questions about whether they were following the law.
  2. There is evidence suggesting that decisions made by U.S. health leaders, like lifting a ban on risky research, potentially contributed to the COVID-19 outbreak. Their actions may not have prioritized public safety.
  3. A lack of transparency and accountability in how health officials manage information during the pandemic has eroded public trust. Many feel that critical details about the virus's origins were suppressed to protect certain interests.
Get a weekly roundup of the best Substack posts, by hacker news affinity:

A review of Charles Piller’s Doctored

The Works in Progress Newsletter • 19 implied HN points • 26 Feb 25
🏥 Health Politics Research Ethics Public Health Alzheimer's Disease Regulatory issues
  1. Fraud and bad research have hurt Alzheimer's studies for years. Some scientists faked results, leading to wasted money and efforts chasing non-existent breakthroughs.
  2. Many findings in Alzheimer's research, like the amyloid hypothesis, have not led to effective treatments. This shows that simply following popular theories can mislead researchers away from better solutions.
  3. The issues in research go beyond fraud; they include the way studies are designed and published. Negative results are often ignored, which can cause scientists to miss important information and keep searching down the wrong paths.

The NIH must make these 8 reforms right now

Vinay Prasad's Observations and Thoughts • 123 implied HN points • 11 Feb 25
🏥 Health Politics Scientific Integrity Research Ethics Public Trust
  1. The NIH should reduce indirect costs because a lot of the money is not spent effectively. Instead of letting universities keep so much, more money could go directly to help research.
  2. We need to be careful with which studies get funding. Some research doesn't tell us anything useful, and it's a waste of taxpayer money.
  3. It's important to make sure that scientific research can be repeated and verified. If a lab can't replicate results, they should lose funding.

The reproducibility crisis and what it means for the NIH

Vinay Prasad's Observations and Thoughts • 111 implied HN points • 12 Feb 25
🔬 Science Research Ethics Scientific Method Data Integrity
  1. Many scientific experiments don't give the same results when repeated. It's like trying to bake a cake and it flops even though the recipe seemed good.
  2. Scientists often face pressure to produce results, which can lead to mistakes or even dishonesty in their work. They tend to focus more on getting results than on finding the truth.
  3. There's a big need for change in how science operates. Even if some discoveries are useful, there's a concern about whether research is really delivering reliable results.

Wokeness Poisons Science

Skeptic • 158 implied HN points • 21 Dec 24
🔬 Science Scientific Method Education Research Ethics Gender Studies Cultural critique
  1. Wokeness is changing how science is done, affecting hiring practices and funding by introducing criteria based on identity rather than merit. This can lead to important scientific work being overlooked if it doesn't align with social justice agendas.
  2. The focus on equality of outcomes instead of opportunities can create flawed policies. It assumes that any inequality in outcomes is solely due to discrimination, ignoring factors like personal choice, abilities, and luck.
  3. Academia is experiencing a shift where free speech and diverse viewpoints are increasingly suppressed. Criticism of woke ideology can lead to severe backlash and censorship, stifling honest discussions in scientific fields.

Science Fictions links for October 2024

Science Fictions • 321 implied HN points • 02 Nov 24
🔬 Science Research Ethics Meta-analysis Mental health
  1. There have been multiple cases of scientific fraud recently, with researchers faking data in many papers. This creates big problems for their colleagues who did not know about the fraud.
  2. Some studies have shown that certain treatments, like puberty blockers, may not be effective for mental health, but researchers are hesitant to publish these findings for fear of misuse.
  3. A recent article criticized scientific practices for being overly sensitive and politically correct, calling out how it can hinder genuine scientific discussion and progress.

Zepbound/Mounjaro Tirzepatide for Weight Loss Part 3

Weight and Healthcare • 818 implied HN points • 10 Feb 24
🏥 Health & Wellness Weight Loss Data Analysis Side Effects Research Ethics
  1. The study on Tirzepatide showed that weight loss for participants slowed after 36 weeks, with those switching to placebo experiencing weight regain while those continuing the drug had a slight weight reduction in the following 52 weeks.
  2. Side effects of Tirzepatide included gastrointestinal issues like nausea, diarrhea, constipation, and vomiting. Close to 82% of participants reported experiencing at least one adverse event during the treatment period.
  3. The study's findings indicate that a significant percentage of participants taking Tirzepatide did not meet the weight reduction thresholds, with a lack of diverse representation among participants and a lack of a weight-neutral comparator group presenting issues in the study design.

Medicine is becoming more corrupt

Vinay Prasad's Observations and Thoughts • 184 implied HN points • 04 Nov 24
🏥 Health Politics Corruption Pharma University Research Ethics Healthcare access
  1. Medicine is being influenced by money from pharmaceutical companies, which can lead to biased practices. This means that decisions in healthcare might prioritize profit over patient care.
  2. Big donations to universities can result in naming rights and influence, creating a potential conflict of interest. This raises questions about the integrity and independence of academic institutions.
  3. There's a concern that this trend towards corruption could compromise the quality of medical research and education. Without accountability, the focus might shift away from ethical standards and patient welfare.

Samiska aktivister försöker tvinga bort Jonny Hjelm

Rak höger med Ivar Arpi • 589 implied HN points • 10 Feb 24
🌍 World Politics Academic Freedom Colonialism Cancel Culture Research Ethics
  1. Samiska aktivister kritiserar Umeå universitet för kursinnehållet som handlar om samer, och anser att en icke-same som Jonny Hjelm inte borde studera detta.
  2. Akademisk frihet och öppen debatt är viktiga värden på universitet enligt fördrag som Umeå universitet har skrivit under.
  3. Det finns oro kring hur aktivister och media porträtterar en kurs om samer vid Umeå universitet, och det finns frågor kring varför det inte finns offentligt stöd från institutionen eller forskarkollegor för den kursansvarige.

More New Information Says COVID Came From Gain Of Function Research In Wuhan Lab

Unmasked • 52 implied HN points • 28 Dec 24
🏥 Health Politics Public Health Policy Debate Pandemic response Research Ethics Government Accountability
  1. Gain of function research in Wuhan might have played a role in the COVID-19 pandemic. This type of research involves modifying viruses to understand their effects.
  2. Anthony Fauci was involved in supporting this risky research, which has led to questions about accountability. His actions have been under scrutiny regarding the origins of COVID-19.
  3. Recent reports suggest that important findings about COVID's origins were not shared with top officials in the U.S. government. This lack of communication raises concerns about transparency and decision-making.

I really don’t care why evolution happened

Something to Consider • 19 implied HN points • 17 Jul 24
🔬 Science Evolution Economics Cultural Studies Public Policy Research Ethics
  1. Science should help us make better choices now, not just speculate about the past. We should focus on how what we learn can improve our lives today.
  2. Understanding historical impacts like slavery can teach us more about current issues, such as trust and economic development, rather than just dwelling on the past for its own sake.
  3. Scientists should prioritize research that benefits society instead of just following personal interests. Our work should aim to make the world better and address current problems.

You will probably die of a cold

Gray Mirror • 134 implied HN points • 17 Jan 24
🌍 World Politics Global Health Government Response Biosecurity Research Ethics
  1. Scientists are focused on collecting viruses for their resumes, even if it means creating deadly ones in labs.
  2. The broken infrastructure of science leads to useless and dangerous research being funded and conducted.
  3. The threat of a lethal pandemic virus being created deliberately is a real concern that governments need to address with strict measures.

New peer-reviewed study again confirms childhood vaccines are likely responsible for nearly 80% of the autism cases in US

Steve Kirsch's newsletter • 14 implied HN points • 24 Jan 25
🏥 Health Politics Vaccination Public Health Research Ethics Child Health
  1. A recent study suggests that childhood vaccines might be linked to around 80% of autism cases in the US. This claim is based on data gathered from the Florida Medicaid database.
  2. The study indicates that children who received more vaccine visits are diagnosed with autism at higher rates, implying a possible connection between the two.
  3. There's a call for more research comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children, as past attempts to initiate such studies have been blocked. This raises questions about the transparency and safety of vaccines.

Scientists Censoring Science

Unsafe Science • 97 implied HN points • 07 Dec 23
🔬 Science Censorship Academic Freedom Peer Review Research Ethics
  1. Censorship isn't just government-based, but also exists in various forms like corporate agreements and book bans.
  2. Rejection in science for not meeting standards isn't censorship - it's a common part of the scientific process.
  3. There is a rising trend of scientists facing punishment for their speech, leading to self-censorship and threats to academic freedom.

eLife's Suppression of Science

A Biologist's Guide to Life • 51 implied HN points • 23 Feb 24
🔬 Science Peer Review Academic Publishing Research Ethics
  1. Peer review in the scientific community can be flawed, biased, and influenced by power dynamics, leading to the suppression of scientific findings.
  2. Scientific papers can face unfair rejection based on personal biases, conflicts of interest, and editorial decisions.
  3. The current scientific publishing system may hinder the open discussion and publication of research that challenges established beliefs or powerful stakeholders in the field.

Commentator

Castalia • 99 implied HN points • 08 Aug 22
🔬 Science Research Ethics Mental health Climate Policy Artificial Intelligence Healthcare
  1. Recent revelations have shown that some Alzheimer's studies used falsified data, calling into question the direction of research and funding in this area.
  2. A new study suggests there is no link between serotonin levels and depression, challenging long-held beliefs about mental health and undermining the pharmaceutical industry's influence.
  3. There's a lack of balanced discussion on climate change, with many voices pushing for extreme positions instead of seeking a middle ground that acknowledges the reality of the problem without inducing panic.

Bad Storms, Bad Science

Natural Selections • 12 implied HN points • 22 Oct 24
🔬 Science Climate Science Environmental Studies Scientific Method Data Analysis Research Ethics
  1. Climate science often relies on models that may not fully prove human actions are the main cause of temperature increases. It's important to question what we assume about these models.
  2. Some media outlets present conclusions about climate change as facts, which can mislead people. They may not explore other possible reasons for climate events.
  3. True science should consider multiple explanations for observations instead of insisting on a single cause. It's essential to keep an open mind in scientific discussions.

What would happen if the government required AI models to tell the truth?

Steve Kirsch's newsletter • 10 implied HN points • 08 Nov 24
🏥 Health Politics Vaccines Autism Public Health Research Ethics Government Policy
  1. If AI models had to tell the truth, we could expect more honest answers to important questions. This could change how we interact with technology and rely on its information.
  2. There have been claims and studies suggesting a link between vaccines and autism, but many scientists disagree. It's a complex issue that needs more open research.
  3. Government oversight of AI and medical research could ensure better transparency and accountability. This would help the public trust information provided by these systems.

The CRU Scandals: A Reflection on Academia

Musings on Markets • 0 implied HN points • 28 Nov 09
🚌 Education Research Ethics Peer Review Data Integrity Academia Research Peer Review Ethics Bias
  1. Academic research often prioritizes getting published over exploring interesting questions. Researchers might choose to work on safe topics that are easier to publish instead of tackling big, challenging ideas.
  2. Bias can affect research outcomes. Researchers bring their own perspectives and preconceptions, which can influence what they study and how they interpret data.
  3. The educational background and connections of a researcher can greatly impact their chances of getting published. Those from elite institutions or who have influential mentors often have better success in the publishing world.

Is AI going to kill us all? An FAQ

The Future of Life • 0 implied HN points • 30 Mar 23
🕹 Technology AI safety Research Ethics Human Values Public Policy Existential Risk
  1. AI has the potential to be very dangerous, and even a small chance of catastrophe is worth taking seriously. Experts have different opinions on how likely this threat is.
  2. Pausing AI research isn't a good idea because it could let bad actors gain an advantage. Instead, it's better for responsible researchers to lead the development.
  3. We should focus on investing in AI safety and creating ethical guidelines to minimize risks. Teaching AI models to follow humanistic values is essential for their positive impact.