The hottest Research Integrity Substack posts right now

And their main takeaways
Category
Top Science Topics

Science Has a Major Fraud Problem

Common Sense with Bari Weiss ā€¢ 2323 implied HN points ā€¢ 10 Mar 26
šŸ”¬ Science Research Integrity
  1. Fraudulent and manipulated data happen in science, and even high-profile papers and labs can be wrong or dishonest.
  2. Online forums and independent sleuthsā€”including students and journalistsā€”are playing a big role in finding and exposing bad science that institutions missed.
  3. Academic incentives and prestige often protect powerful researchers and can punish those who insist on honest, rigorous work, making it harder to fix the problem.

How Can Doctors Like This Provide Competent Care To Their Patients?

Singal-Minded ā€¢ 2897 implied HN points ā€¢ 07 Feb 26
šŸ„ Health Politics Research Integrity
  1. Some prominent doctors publicly condemn critics of trans healthcare and present themselves as morally superior, sometimes making strong claims without clearly showing how those claims cause real harm.
  2. A widely-cited 2023 study often pointed to in favor of youth gender medicine has major methodological problemsā€”missing data, outcome switching, and small or inconsistent effectsā€”so it does not provide strong causal evidence, and broader reviews find the evidence base weak.
  3. When high-status clinicians endorse or rely on weak research, it raises legitimate concerns about their ability to appraise evidence and about patient care, because patients may get recommendations that arenā€™t well supported.

The Great John Ioannidis on the Terrible Science During Covid

COVID Reason ā€¢ 753 implied HN points ā€¢ 15 Oct 24
šŸ”¬ Science Research Integrity
  1. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a flood of poor-quality scientific studies. Many rushed papers were published that had unreliable findings, highlighting a major issue in research standards.
  2. To improve science in the future, researchers need to focus on real problems and provide real-world data instead of relying heavily on models. Transparency is also crucial so everyone can trust the research and its sources.
  3. Healthcare workers faced immense challenges during the pandemic and deserve more support. The lessons learned from this crisis should help us prioritize quality scientific work and the human aspect of healthcare.

One Weird Trick to Get Significant Results

Cremieux Recueil ā€¢ 295 implied HN points ā€¢ 13 Mar 26
šŸ”¬ Science Research Integrity
  1. Researchers often split samples and hunt for subgroups where effects become significant, but reporting subgroup "wins" without testing interactions or accounting for low power produces misleading, likely fluke results.
  2. The functional medicine trial example shows clear red flags: inconsistent numbers, bad or post-hoc preregistration, incorrect power/sample-size math, undisclosed conflicts, non-ITT analyses, and unreported/misused subgroup tests with weak measures.
  3. These practices make findings fragile and hard to replicate, so studies need proper prospective registration, correct power calculations, transparent reporting (including interaction tests), multiple-comparisons control, and shared data to be trustworthy.

Is Omitting Data from a COVID-19 Study Conclusion a Lie?

Who is Robert Malone ā€¢ 15 implied HN points ā€¢ 19 Mar 26
šŸ„ Health Politics Research Integrity
  1. Severe COVID outcomes in children were already very rare, and vaccination provided only modest, shortā€‘lived protection; with widespread prior infection and milder variants today, the marginal benefit is likely smaller.
  2. Cardiac inflammation (myocarditis/pericarditis) appeared only in vaccinated children in the data; these events are rare but measurable, and followā€‘up imaging shows persistent abnormalities in a notable fraction.
  3. Study framing and conclusions can emphasize small benefits while softening harms, so important safety signals may be buried in tables rather than highlighted; riskā€“benefit assessments should be reā€‘evaluated transparently as baseline risk changes.
Get a weekly roundup of the best Substack posts, by hacker news affinity:

Fast Fact Check: Does Hep B Vaccination Cause Autism?

Cremieux Recueil ā€¢ 199 implied HN points ā€¢ 05 Mar 26
šŸ„ Health Politics Research Integrity
  1. A single study claiming that hepatitis B vaccination in early infancy causes autism is statistically fragile, underpowered, and its positive finding disappears after proper multiple-comparison corrections.
  2. The studyā€™s result depended on questionable analytic choicesā€”like excluding girls, omitting important control variables, and running inappropriate specificity testsā€”which made the finding misleading.
  3. Reanalyses produce inconsistent and biologically implausible associations with other conditions, indicating confounding rather than causation, and there is no credible evidence that hepatitis B vaccination causes autism.

No plausible explanation given for the lack of symmetry in "rapid onset" autism cases

Steve Kirsch's newsletter ā€¢ 6 implied HN points ā€¢ 08 Mar 26
šŸ„ Health Politics Research Integrity
  1. Thousands of parents report their child developed normally and then showed autistic behaviors within hours or days after a vaccination, while reports of regression before a vaccine appointment are said to be rare.
  2. The critique is that researchers and studies often do not collect exact calendar dates of symptom onset relative to vaccination, so analyses canā€™t reliably compare timing before versus after shots and may miss a temporal signal.
  3. The medical community is accused of not examining or sharing pediatric timing data that would compare week-before versus week-after cases, and proponents say a simple survey of those counts would quickly settle the question.

The Office of Research Integrity Should Investigate Nature Medicineā€™s Corrupt ā€œProximal Originsā€ Paper

The DisInformation Chronicle ā€¢ 365 implied HN points ā€¢ 13 Jan 26
šŸ„ Health Politics Research Integrity
  1. House investigators and public emails show Jeremy Farrar helped organize and lead drafting of the Proximal Origins paper but was not listed or acknowledged, which the piece frames as ghostwriting that meets federal plagiarism criteria.
  2. Because the paper disclosed NIH funding, the Office of Research Integrity has legal authority to investigate it for fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.
  3. ORI currently relies on Scripps, Tulane, and other institutions to investigate themselves, and the article argues that if those institutional reports ignore the public evidence, it would indicate the ORI system is broken and needs reform.

Truth, Trust, and the Case for Viewpoint Diversity

Unsafe Science ā€¢ 106 implied HN points ā€¢ 15 Feb 26
šŸšŒ Education Research Integrity
  1. Viewpoint diversity is essential for getting closer to the truth in unsettled or politicized areas because it encourages competing hypotheses, adversarial collaboration, and stronger tests of ideas.
  2. Framing calls for intellectual pluralism as merely a conservative or authoritarian plot is misleading; the case for viewpoint diversity predates modern politics and its advocates are not uniformly partisan.
  3. Many academic fields are heavily left-leaning, which fosters self-censorship and biased scholarship, so increasing ideological diversity would improve research, teaching, and public trust.

Well Cited

The Honest Broker Newsletter ā€¢ 3032 implied HN points ā€¢ 05 Aug 25
šŸŒž Climate & Environment Research Integrity
  1. The Department of Energy (DOE) Climate Working Group report cites a lot of research accurately, which is a positive sign for scientific integrity.
  2. It's important for scientific studies to be interpreted correctly, even if they support policies that some researchers might not agree with.
  3. The author suggests that some citations in the report could be improved for clarity and recommends updates to ensure accuracy.

Too Big to Fail

The Honest Broker Newsletter ā€¢ 2581 implied HN points ā€¢ 15 Aug 25
šŸŒž Climate & Environment Research Integrity
  1. A recent climate study published in *Nature* predicted large economic losses due to climate change, but it has been found to be seriously flawed. This could potentially mislead policymakers and the public.
  2. Experts discovered that correcting some mistakes in the original study greatly reduced the predicted damages, showing they might not be significant at all. This raises questions about the reliability of the findings.
  3. The flawed study has been widely accepted in important policy discussions, which could create serious consequences for global economic strategies and confidence in climate science.

Resisting the Politicization of Science

Heterodox STEM ā€¢ 199 implied HN points ā€¢ 14 Dec 25
šŸ”¬ Science Research Integrity
  1. Science must stay independent from politics and ideology, with research, publication, and recognition judged by scientific merit rather than identity or political alignment.
  2. Threats to scientific independence come from multiple directionsā€”both activist pressures within academia and political or governmental interference can undermine research integrity.
  3. Researchers and institutions should defend norms like rigorous peer review, open inquiry, unbiased evaluation, and autonomy in funding and education to preserve scienceā€™s reliability and universality.

Is Internal Reform of Academia Possible?

Unsafe Science ā€¢ 183 implied HN points ā€¢ 14 Dec 25
šŸšŒ Education Research Integrity
  1. Academia is seriously skewed by left-wing ideological capture that affects theory, methods, hiring, teaching, funding, and publishing. That bias leads to censorship, politicized journals, and distorted scholarship.
  2. Many insiders block reform through denial, deflection, and a ā€˜now is not the timeā€™ or ā€˜canā€™t doā€™ mentality, and some reformers weaken efforts by worrying about optics or jargon instead of acting. Common excuses include claiming reform is a right-wing plot, minimizing the problem, or endlessly debating terms.
  3. Internal reform is possible but difficult and requires sustained, practical action like working groups, viewpoint-diversity initiatives, and firm pushback against obstructionary rhetoric. Progress will be slow and needs a mix of patient inside efforts, outside pressure, and educating skeptics with evidence.

Unsafe Science Retrospective

Unsafe Science ā€¢ 106 implied HN points ā€¢ 26 Dec 25
šŸ”¬ Science Research Integrity
  1. An independent newsletter platform can protect free inquiry and host open discussion with guest contributors. Paid subscriptions can be used to fund research, backstop projects, and launch alternative journals and conferences.
  2. Academic mobs and cancellation campaigns can target critics of diversity initiatives. Careful public documentation and rebuttal can turn attacks into increased support, new scholarship, and career opportunities.
  3. A central theme is that DEI programs and the politicization of scholarship can be ineffective or harmful. If academia remains highly partisan, it risks losing funding, credibility, and the ability to function effectively.

How Will Vaccine Skeptics View Vaccine Beer?

Viruses Must Die ā€¢ 52 implied HN points ā€¢ 27 Dec 25
šŸ”¬ Science Research Integrity
  1. Talk to vaccine skeptics with empathy and without sneering; listening and explaining things simply helps conversations go much better.
  2. Distrust of institutional scientists and Big Pharma fuels skepticism, but independent scientists also deserve critical scrutinyā€”avoid reflexive tribalism on either side.
  3. Vaccine beer might appeal to some skeptics if itā€™s transparent, clearly not coercive (for example, visibly colored), and developed with feedback from skeptical communities beyond oneā€™s family.

Recent Metascience News/Links

The Good Science Project ā€¢ 40 implied HN points ā€¢ 18 Dec 25
šŸ”¬ Science Research Integrity
  1. Even though we spend much more on science and R&D than in the past, the bottleneck for economic growth is often our ability to translate discoveries into marketable products, not a shortage of new ideas.
  2. Research funding and review rules are shifting: NSF is allowing fewer outside reviews and giving program managers more discretion, and NIH has removed the old requirement to get advance permission for very large grant applications.
  3. Reproducibility and data-quality problems keep appearing in areas like crystallography, and analysts caution against treating measures like ā€œvariance explainedā€ as if they directly show a variableā€™s causal impact.

Thanks to STAT for putting me on the STATUS list

Science Forever ā€¢ 159 implied HN points ā€¢ 28 Feb 24
šŸ”¬ Science Research Integrity
  1. Holden Thorp was named by STAT News to the STATUS list of top 50 leaders in the life sciences for his work in research integrity.
  2. Thorp has challenged the stigma around corrections and retractions in scientific publishing, advocating for increasing public trust in the scientific enterprise.
  3. Recognition also goes to the team at Science, including Valda Vinson, Lauren Kmec, Meagan Phelan, and Lisa Chong, for their contributions to research policies and Thorp's work.

We must fearlessly pursue truth, and truth alone

Heterodox STEM ā€¢ 192 implied HN points ā€¢ 08 Jun 25
šŸ”¬ Science Research Integrity
  1. It's important for scientists to report accurate information about climate change, without exaggerating risks. This helps keep trust in science strong.
  2. Some published studies can mislead people by only showing negative aspects of climate data. A balanced view is necessary to understand the full picture.
  3. We should encourage honest and thorough research that combines both good and bad news about our world. Pursuing the truth is essential.

Dr. Arthur Caplan: Will you help us stop the disinformation crisis?

Steve Kirsch's newsletter ā€¢ 6 implied HN points ā€¢ 07 Jan 26
šŸ„ Health Politics Research Integrity
  1. Some record-level studies and analyses are claimed to show that childhood vaccinations do not reduce mortality and may be linked to higher infant deaths or SIDS, challenging mainstream claims that vaccines clearly save lives.
  2. Critics contend that many experts who warn about vaccine disinformation avoid open public debates with qualified dissenting voices, and a public challenge is being made to force that discussion.
  3. Open, transparent public debate is presented as the best way to stop disinformation and let people judge who is telling the truth.

My email to Brown Professor Craig Spencer, M.D., MPH on his StatNews article

Steve Kirsch's newsletter ā€¢ 8 implied HN points ā€¢ 15 Dec 25
šŸ„ Health Politics Research Integrity
  1. An open invitation asks a public health expert to have a civil, data-focused conversation about vaccine safety, aiming to stick to data and methods rather than rhetoric.
  2. The view that the medical community is simply 'correct and must earn trust' is challenged, with a key concern being that many credentialed experts refuse public, method-focused debates.
  3. Repeated attempts to engage prominent figures (including offers to Dr. Paul Offit and an instance where Peter Hotez reportedly declined to meet RFK) are seen as evidence that refusal to dialogue is the main barrier to finding the truth, and dialogue is promoted as the solution.

That MIT paper about AI accelerating materials science progress that everyone has been talking about is fake..

More is Different ā€¢ 32 implied HN points ā€¢ 29 Jun 25
šŸ”¬ Science Research Integrity
  1. A paper from MIT claimed AI helps scientists be more productive, but it turned out to be fake. The student behind it has been expelled and the paper withdrawn.
  2. Many respected people praised the fake paper, not realizing it was based on unreliable data. This shows how easily misinformation can spread in academic circles.
  3. The incident highlights the need for a culture where scientists can question research openly. Asking tough questions could help prevent fraud and ensure better scientific practices.

We're suing Springer Nature for $250M in punitive damages for the unethical retraction of our COVID harms paper

Steve Kirsch's newsletter ā€¢ 24 implied HN points ā€¢ 06 Mar 24
šŸ„ Health Politics Research Integrity
  1. Scientific journals have been retracting papers unethically for decades, and it's time for this unethical practice to stop
  2. The author is suing Springer Nature for $250M in punitive damages due to the unethical retraction of their COVID harms paper
  3. The impact of the retracted paper on changing views, even of popular figures like Dr. Boz, highlights the importance of holding journals accountable and seeking justice