The hottest Research Ethics Substack posts right now

And their main takeaways
Category
Top World Politics Topics

Why we need to reform the IRB review process and how we propose to do it

Heterodox STEM • 142 implied HN points • 18 Mar 26
🔬 Science Research Ethics
  1. IRBs have drifted from their core job of assessing participant risk and now too often overregulate, police intellectual content, and block or delay valid research.
  2. The Mudd Code lays out concrete reforms—more transparency, stronger fidelity to Belmont principles, and a renewed focus on balancing risk and benefit instead of trying to eliminate risk entirely.
  3. Momentum is building for change: professional groups and institutions are engaging with the Mudd Code and investigators are encouraged to read it and discuss these reforms with their IRBs.

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 Research Ethics
  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.

The greatest trick Ralph Baric ever played was convincing the world he didn't exist

Unreported Truths • 55 implied HN points • 12 Mar 26
🏥 Health Politics Research Ethics
  1. A leading coronavirus researcher conducted gain-of-function experiments creating chimeric viruses that were made more capable of infecting human cells.
  2. That researcher and his collaborators have largely avoided public scrutiny, and their unpublished lab work has been kept hidden or protected by institutions.
  3. There are strong allegations that the pandemic may be linked to laboratory research and that scientists and agencies downplayed or covered up a possible lab origin.

Are Bad Researchers Bad People?

Heterodox STEM • 263 implied HN points • 01 Feb 26
đź“– Philosophy Research Ethics
  1. Intellectual virtues like humility, open-mindedness, and integrity are crucial to sound inquiry because they help researchers notice and correct biases.
  2. Practicing these virtues improves research quality, helps expose pseudoscience, and reduces political polarization by making people less likely to dismiss opposing views or cling to weak evidence.
  3. Teaching and modeling epistemic virtues—through classroom practices, checklists, and dedicated programs—can strengthen scholarship and make public debate more reliable and civil.

Mystery of the Head Activator

Asimov Press • 328 implied HN points • 18 Jan 26
🔬 Science Research Ethics
  1. A small peptide called the “head activator” was reported to trigger head regeneration in hydra and was even sequenced and sold as a synthetic compound, but many labs couldn’t replicate the effect and later genomic and proteomic data show that sequence isn’t encoded in hydra, undermining the original claim.
  2. The controversy became deeply personal and institutional, leading to accusations, a formal inquiry and fines, missed career opportunities, and lasting grudges among researchers involved.
  3. Meanwhile, hydra patterning is now better explained by established ideas like the Gierer–Meinhardt model and Wnt signaling, illustrating how science self-corrects even though the true origin of the originally reported peptide remains an unresolved puzzle.
Get a weekly roundup of the best Substack posts, by hacker news affinity:

Eight Years After I First Exposed Fraudulent Monsanto Paper, Corrupt Journal Retracts It

The DisInformation Chronicle • 580 implied HN points • 05 Dec 25
🏥 Health Politics Research Ethics
  1. The journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology has a history of publishing studies that favor corporate interests rather than genuine science. This can mislead public health policies.
  2. High-profile reports, like those from the National Academies, often include studies from this journal, potentially influencing perceptions about the safety of products like genetically modified organisms.
  3. There's a call for more accountability in scientific publishing, particularly to shut down journals that consistently promote corrupt research funded by industries instead of unbiased science.

Brief Notes on Scientific Critique

Cremieux Recueil • 434 implied HN points • 27 Dec 25
🔬 Science Research Ethics
  1. Make sure your criticism is correct: check the data, run the needed analyses, and only accuse or declare problems when you can justify them.
  2. Focus on meaningful, relevant issues that actually change conclusions — don’t list hypotheticals; quantify or demonstrate how a confound or error would affect the results.
  3. Be generous and contextual: assume good faith, ask for clarification or contact authors privately when fixable, and build enough domain knowledge to notice real problems instead of relying on rote one‑liners.

Donald Trump vs. Academia: A War on Science or a Loss of Trust?

Heterodox STEM • 355 implied HN points • 16 Dec 25
🚌 Education Research Ethics
  1. Public trust in science depends more on shared values and perceived neutrality than on education, and when topics become politicized people often assume scientists are biased and stop trusting them.
  2. Academia has become ideologically one-sided and built large administrative structures like diversity, equity, and inclusion programs that many see as promoting activism over open inquiry and silencing dissent.
  3. Some scientists are pushing back by speaking out, cutting ties with politicized institutions or publishers, and calling for reform or new institutions because they fear silence will erode the integrity of science.

Major NIH Nutrition Trials on Diet & Health Ignored

Unsettled Science • 1738 implied HN points • 11 Jul 25
🏥 Health Politics Research Ethics
  1. Many important nutrition trials conducted by the NIH have been ignored when creating US Dietary Guidelines. This is concerning, as these studies were large and lasted several years.
  2. The results showed that low-fat diets and reducing saturated fats did not prevent major health issues like heart disease or cancer. In fact, some trials indicated that these diets might even increase health risks.
  3. The current nutritional guidelines still promote these low-fat recommendations, despite a wealth of evidence against them. There's a call for the NIH to stop funding studies emphasizing low-fat diets and saturated fat restrictions.

Zepbound/Mounjaro Tirzepatide for Weight Loss Part 3

Weight and Healthcare • 818 implied HN points • 10 Feb 24
🏥 Health & Wellness 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.

Back and Forth on the Value of Replication

The Good Science Project • 48 implied HN points • 29 Jan 26
🔬 Science Research Ethics
  1. Replicating studies early usually gives much bigger returns because it can stop entire lines of follow-on work from chasing a wrong result, though some older papers that still drive current research can also be worth replicating.
  2. Citation counts are an imperfect measure of influence, and once a paper's findings are deeply embedded across many follow-on studies, a single replication may not undo that influence—so sometimes it's higher impact to replicate key descendant papers instead of only the original.
  3. The impact of replication can be increased by changing incentives and communication: funders and journals can publicize replication results, link them to original papers, and adjust funding or citation expectations to make replications matter more.

Samiska aktivister försöker tvinga bort Jonny Hjelm

Rak höger med Ivar Arpi • 589 implied HN points • 10 Feb 24
🌍 World Politics 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.

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

Singal-Minded • 1406 implied HN points • 10 Feb 25
🔬 Science Research Ethics
  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.

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

DYNOMIGHT INTERNET NEWSLETTER • 1015 implied HN points • 13 Feb 25
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Research Ethics
  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.

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 Research Ethics
  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.

I really don’t care why evolution happened

Something to Consider • 19 implied HN points • 17 Jul 24
🔬 Science 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.

Ralph Baric, the world's top coronavirus researcher, discussed "human adaptation" of coronaviruses with the CIA before Covid began

Unreported Truths • 42 implied HN points • 12 Nov 25
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Research Ethics
  1. Dr. Ralph Baric has significant connections with U.S. intelligence agencies, discussing coronavirus research with them before the outbreak of Covid-19.
  2. Baric's partnership with the Wuhan Institute of Virology raises questions about the lab's safety and the origins of the virus.
  3. Despite being central to controversial research, Baric has largely avoided public scrutiny or accountability regarding his work and its implications.

Science Fictions links for October 2024

Science Fictions • 321 implied HN points • 02 Nov 24
🔬 Science Research Ethics
  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.

NIH Staff Revolt Promotes Propaganda about Diversity

Unsafe Science • 91 implied HN points • 11 Jun 25
🔬 Science Research Ethics
  1. Some NIH staff signed a declaration to object to Trump administration policies, especially regarding diversity in research funding. They believe these policies hurt scientific progress.
  2. The declaration claims that diverse research teams are essential for better outcomes. However, this claim has faced criticism for lacking strong evidence.
  3. Critics argue that many signatories may not be qualified to comment on social science issues since their expertise is primarily in STEM fields, which could undermine the credibility of their statements.

Francis Collins retires from the NIH

Vinay Prasad's Observations and Thoughts • 128 implied HN points • 03 Mar 25
🏥 Health Politics 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.

Wokeness Poisons Science

Skeptic • 158 implied HN points • 21 Dec 24
🔬 Science Research Ethics
  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.

Medicine is becoming more corrupt

Vinay Prasad's Observations and Thoughts • 184 implied HN points • 04 Nov 24
🏥 Health Politics Research Ethics
  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.

The NIH must make these 8 reforms right now

Vinay Prasad's Observations and Thoughts • 123 implied HN points • 11 Feb 25
🏥 Health Politics Research Ethics
  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.

Unsafe Commenting Guidelines

Unsafe Science • 137 implied HN points • 06 Jan 25
🔬 Science Research Ethics
  1. Be nice and respectful when commenting. No insults or personal attacks allowed.
  2. Stay on topic. Comments should relate directly to the post rather than unrelated issues.
  3. Keep comments short. Aim for around 300 words, so everyone can share their thoughts without overwhelming the conversation.

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
  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.

If you are affiliated with any academic institution worldwide, I'll pay you to help redpill the world by surfacing aggregated mortality rate data from public health registries

Steve Kirsch's newsletter • 5 implied HN points • 25 Dec 25
🏥 Health Politics Research Ethics
  1. The project seeks academic-affiliated researchers to access national public health registries and publicly share weekly cohort mortality rates.
  2. They offer payment and argue the exported data will be aggregated, non-identifying, legally shareable, and useful for evaluating vaccine safety.
  3. Work is expected to be done on secure research platforms using Python (pandas, SQL) by materializing denormalized cohorts, computing weekly hazards/KCOR, and following export constraints like no external pip installs or APIs.

Paul Offit responds to multiple challenges by deferring to the peer-reviewed literature

Steve Kirsch's newsletter • 6 implied HN points • 16 Dec 25
🏥 Health Politics Research Ethics
  1. Peer review and major journals can act as gatekeepers tied to institutional and industry interests, so relying only on traditional publication as proof can suppress dissenting evidence and block open scientific debate.
  2. A new, simple analysis method applied to comprehensive national registry data is claimed to reveal net harms in some groups, and critics are challenged to either point to a better method or directly engage with those data and code.
  3. Restoring trustworthy science requires concrete reforms — open raw data, transparent and accountable peer review, independent funding for journals, cryptographic records of submissions, and stronger support for replication and independent researchers.

Massive Danish study finds a statistically significant link between aluminum and health conditions, but they manipulated the data to show the opposite

Steve Kirsch's newsletter • 7 implied HN points • 24 Nov 25
🏥 Health Politics Research Ethics
  1. A Danish study claims that aluminum exposure reduces autism and asthma risks, but many think the data was manipulated.
  2. There is no scientific reason to believe that injecting aluminum improves health, and no doctors recommend this treatment.
  3. The study's results are questioned because other evidence shows high aluminum levels in the brains of autistic children.

Scientific Rigor versus Rigor Posturing

Unsafe Science • 30 implied HN points • 01 Jul 25
🔬 Science Research Ethics
  1. Some studies claim there's bias against women in science hiring, but newer research suggests the opposite might be true.
  2. It's important to distinguish between real scientific rigor and just pretending to be rigorous.
  3. Replication of studies helps verify results, and sometimes new data can completely change our understanding of biases in science.

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

Unmasked • 52 implied HN points • 28 Dec 24
🏥 Health Politics Research Ethics
  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.

The PLOS Biology journal editors claim vaccines don't cause autism and we should NOT do a proper study to find out if this is true or not

Steve Kirsch's newsletter • 5 implied HN points • 10 Nov 25
🏥 Health Politics Research Ethics
  1. The PLOS Biology editors state that vaccines don't cause autism and argue against further research, which some view as avoiding important questions.
  2. There has never been a thorough study that properly examines the link between vaccines and autism, raising concerns about the validity of existing studies.
  3. There are claims of hidden data and suppressed discussions in serious meetings, making it difficult for researchers to investigate this topic openly.

You will probably die of a cold

Gray Mirror • 134 implied HN points • 17 Jan 24
🌍 World Politics 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.

Commentator

Castalia • 99 implied HN points • 08 Aug 22
🔬 Science Research Ethics
  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.

Scientists Censoring Science

Unsafe Science • 97 implied HN points • 07 Dec 23
🔬 Science 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.

A review of Charles Piller’s Doctored

The Works in Progress Newsletter • 19 implied HN points • 26 Feb 25
🏥 Health Politics Research Ethics
  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.

REVERSAL: Science Faculty's "Subtle" Gender Biases Against Men

Unsafe Science • 9 implied HN points • 27 Jun 25
🔬 Science Research Ethics
  1. A study found that there might be a subtle gender bias against men in science faculties. This is a surprising shift from what people usually think about gender bias.
  2. This finding goes against an influential earlier study that suggested biases favored women instead. It's important to keep checking our assumptions.
  3. The research highlights the need to understand all kinds of biases in academic environments. Both men and women can face challenges based on gender, and we need to address this fairly.

eLife's Suppression of Science

A Biologist's Guide to Life • 51 implied HN points • 23 Feb 24
🔬 Science 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.

Carole Hooven | The War on Science Interviews | Day 11

Critical Mass • 5 implied HN points • 03 Aug 25
🔬 Science Research Ethics
  1. There will be 20 interviews released, featuring various authors discussing the problems in science and academia. The goal is to share ideas on how to address these issues.
  2. Topics include how social justice activism is affecting academic scholarship and the dangers of cancel culture. The conversations aim to spark important discussions about restoring science and free speech.
  3. The interviews and reflecting on the upcoming book hope to encourage awareness and prompt action to improve the current state of academia and scientific inquiry.

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 Research Ethics
  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.