The hottest Scientific Integrity Substack posts right now

And their main takeaways
Category
Top U.S. Politics Topics

The test of open dialogue

Your Local Epidemiologist • 1393 implied HN points • 25 Feb 26
🏥 Health Politics Scientific Integrity
  1. Jay Bhattacharya now leads both CDC and NIH, and his tenure will be judged on whether he protects the open scientific debate he once called for.
  2. Respectful, in-person conversations can humanize opponents and help reconcile hard public health trade-offs, even when people still disagree.
  3. Recent moves like limiting public comment, reshaping advisory boards, removing materials, and firings have raised worries about reduced transparency and politicization, and the agencies’ direction will be closely watched.

The Weather Truther Playbook

The Honest Broker Newsletter • 3660 implied HN points • 27 Dec 25
🌞 Climate & Environment Scientific Integrity
  1. A vocal movement treats every extreme weather event as obvious proof of climate change and uses those events to push urgent policy action.
  2. Their playbook is PANIC → ALARM → CURE: build advocacy narratives, constantly attribute harms to climate in the media, then present CO2 cuts as the clear remedy.
  3. That approach risks undermining mainstream climate science and public trust, creating obstacles to effective long-term climate policy and prompting calls for stronger scientific integrity.

A Huge Retraction, the Usual Playbook, and Reason for Optimism

The Honest Broker Newsletter • 2973 implied HN points • 03 Dec 25
🌞 Climate & Environment Scientific Integrity
  1. A major climate‑economics paper was retracted for substantial errors after more than a year, even though it had become highly influential in media and policy.
  2. Many powerful institutions and some outlets initially downplayed or continued to rely on the flawed results, highlighting how entrenched science can shape real‑world financial and policy decisions.
  3. There are hopeful signs of correction: critics and better journalism brought problems to light, and some experts argue research should focus more on targeted, practical questions instead of sweeping long‑range macro projections.

Scientists Say

Doomberg • 6757 implied HN points • 16 Oct 24
🔬 Science Scientific Integrity
  1. Predictions for the hurricane season this year were very alarming, with many experts expecting a lot of severe storms. But as the season progressed, there were fewer storms than anticipated.
  2. When hurricanes did occur, some were extremely powerful, but overall, the lack of activity puzzled scientists and led to discussions about climate change's role in future storm patterns.
  3. Trust in scientists and experts has declined, as many people feel unsure about their predictions and analyses, highlighting a disconnect between scientific findings and public perception.
Get a weekly roundup of the best Substack posts, by hacker news affinity:

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

Singal-Minded • 1406 implied HN points • 10 Feb 25
🔬 Science Scientific Integrity
  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.

We Should Try to Directly Measure the Value of Scientific Papers

Nonsense on Stilts • 59 implied HN points • 20 Jul 24
🔬 Science Scientific Integrity
  1. We should measure the value of scientific papers to understand their real impact. If a paper doesn't change how people act or think, then it may not be worth much.
  2. To figure out the value of a paper, we can use a formula that compares what outcomes we expect with the information from the paper versus without it. This helps us see if the research is actually useful.
  3. It's important to have good estimates and decisions tied to the research to see its true worth. By doing this, we can better judge which scientific papers are really making a difference.

The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science: 2024 Update

The Honest Broker Newsletter • 2316 implied HN points • 19 Feb 24
🔬 Science Scientific Integrity
  1. Climate research and policy are still heavily based on outdated and misleading scenarios like RCP8.5, which are causing a disconnect from reality and hindering progress.
  2. Studies in various fields can continue to gain momentum, even if they are based on flawed or outdated foundations, leading to a waste of resources and efforts.
  3. There is a pressing need for a significant reset in climate research to address the widespread usage of obsolete scenarios like RCP8.5, despite the acknowledged divergence from real-world data.

Attribution Stealth Advocacy at the NAS

The Honest Broker Newsletter • 1089 implied HN points • 04 Nov 24
🌞 Climate & Environment Scientific Integrity
  1. A new committee formed by the National Academy of Sciences is seen as biased because it includes members with ties to groups that have an agenda against climate policy. This raises concerns about conflicts of interest.
  2. Some advocates argue that linking climate change to individual weather events is part of a strategy to support climate lawsuits, which might compromise the integrity of scientific research.
  3. There are worries that the push for extreme weather event attribution could replace established scientific frameworks, risking the credibility of major scientific institutions like the IPCC.

Silencing Climate Whistle-Blowers

The Climate Historian • 19 implied HN points • 02 Aug 24
🌞 Climate & Environment Scientific Integrity
  1. Climate scientists often face pressure from political leaders, leading to threats against their work. For instance, Virginia Burkett, a scientist at USGS, was demoted for opposing harmful actions by the Trump administration.
  2. Historical cases show that scientists like James Hansen faced censorship for speaking out on climate change. Even reputable scientists can be silenced because of their messages that contradict certain political views.
  3. The influence of special interests can lead to significant changes in scientific priorities. This jeopardizes crucial climate research as short-term profit motives often take precedence over environmental concerns.

What I would change at NSF

Heterodox STEM • 355 implied HN points • 01 Dec 24
🔬 Science Scientific Integrity
  1. The NSF should refocus on funding high-quality scientific research based solely on merit rather than identity politics.
  2. Key reforms include changing their vision and core values to prioritize excellence in science.
  3. Unnecessary offices and initiatives that do not contribute to scientific advancement should be eliminated to streamline the NSF's efforts.

Metascience at the NIH

The Good Science Project • 59 implied HN points • 05 Aug 25
🔬 Science Scientific Integrity
  1. The NIH is looking to limit high article processing charges for open-access journals. This is important because some journals ask for really high fees that can take away from research funding.
  2. The NIH is working to reduce bureaucracy that slows down research. Researchers spend a lot of time on paperwork, which could be better spent on their actual science work.
  3. There’s a focus on funding more replication experiments in science. This is key because it helps check if important research findings are true and not based on mistakes or fraud.

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
  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.

NIH study sections are broken

Vinay Prasad's Observations and Thoughts • 106 implied HN points • 29 Jan 25
🏥 Health Politics Scientific Integrity
  1. NIH study sections often fund unambitious science instead of groundbreaking research. This is a problem because many mediocre scientists are in charge, which doesn't help advance science.
  2. There's a heavy focus on diversity and inclusion in NIH grants, but much of it just repeats what we already know. Instead, we need better treatments for everyone, regardless of race or status.
  3. The review process for grants can discourage scientists from speaking out on important issues. This silence can lead to a lack of innovative ideas and solutions in research.

Addressing Research Fraud

The Good Science Project • 89 implied HN points • 27 Jan 25
🔬 Science Scientific Integrity
  1. The Good Science Project aims to help investigate research fraud and support whistleblowers. They want to make it easier for people to report misconduct in science.
  2. Research fraud is a common problem, with many scientists admitting to questionable practices. Reports suggest that a significant number of researchers have seen or engaged in misconduct.
  3. The project plans to provide legal and educational resources for those worried about speaking out against fraud. They want to empower more people to come forward about their concerns.

More suggestions for FDA reform for a Trump presidency

Vinay Prasad's Observations and Thoughts • 98 implied HN points • 07 Nov 24
🏥 Health Politics Scientific Integrity
  1. The FDA should stop allowing pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers. This could help reduce biased promotion of drugs.
  2. It's important to improve transparency in the FDA's decision-making process and ensure that medical advice is based on solid evidence.
  3. We need better oversight of the fees the FDA charges for reviews so that smaller businesses aren't unfairly priced out, and more funding should go into tracking the safety of drugs after they are approved.

Retraction of the Danish aluminum study is ethically necessary to restore trust in the medical journals

Steve Kirsch's newsletter • 6 implied HN points • 04 Aug 25
🏥 Health Politics Scientific Integrity
  1. The revised Danish aluminum study has serious flaws, like not being open about the changes made to the data. This kind of manipulation is a big deal in science.
  2. There are concerns that the study downplays real risks by having a short follow-up period and not looking closely enough at health issues like autism and ADHD.
  3. To rebuild trust in medical research, this study should be retracted. It’s important for science to be transparent and free from conflicts of interest.

Solveig Gold and Joshua Katz | The War on Science Interviews | Day 9

Critical Mass • 4 implied HN points • 01 Aug 25
🔬 Science Scientific Integrity
  1. The interviews discuss big issues in academia, like free speech and how social justice affects science. It's important to talk about these problems to help fix science and education.
  2. Many experts featured in the interviews believe that there are real dangers from cancel culture and misleading information in fields like medicine and gender studies. They want to expose these risks to people.
  3. The goal is to encourage discussion and make universities better for scholarship and science. They want to unite people to battle this ongoing conflict about how science is viewed and taught.

Maarten Boudry | The War on Science Interviews | Day 3

Critical Mass • 4 implied HN points • 27 Jul 25
🔬 Science Scientific Integrity
  1. There will be 20 interviews released that discuss serious issues affecting science and academia. Each interview will focus on different topics related to the current state of science.
  2. The conversations bring attention to problems like cancel culture and the impact of social justice activism in academic fields. These issues are seen as threats to scientific progress.
  3. The initiative aims to spark discussions about restoring trust and excellence in science. It's important to address both internal and external challenges facing the scientific community.

John Armstrong | The War on Science Interviews | Day 6

Critical Mass • 3 implied HN points • 28 Jul 25
🔬 Science Scientific Integrity
  1. A series of 20 interviews with authors from 'The War on Science' book will be released daily, starting from July 22. These interviews will cover serious topics about science and academia.
  2. The discussions highlight problems like ideological corruption in science, the impact of social justice activism, and issues related to gender and medicine. The goal is to spark conversation on how to restore trust in science.
  3. The book addresses ongoing internal issues in academia and calls for greater awareness and action to protect sound science against various challenges.

Nicholas Christakis | The War on Science Interviews | Day 3

Critical Mass • 3 implied HN points • 25 Jul 25
🔬 Science Scientific Integrity
  1. A series of interviews are being released with authors who have contributed to a book about the challenges facing science today.
  2. Topics discussed in these interviews include issues like free speech, political influence on academia, and problems with how science is being practiced and communicated.
  3. The goal of these dialogues is to spark conversations about restoring trust and sound practices in science within universities.

Abigail Thompson | The War on Science Interviews | Day 5

Critical Mass • 2 implied HN points • 27 Jul 25
🔬 Science Scientific Integrity
  1. A series of 20 interviews with authors from 'The War on Science' will be released, starting on July 22nd. Each interview focuses on different issues affecting science today.
  2. The authors discuss serious problems like the corruption of academia, free speech issues, and how social justice activism can interfere with genuine research.
  3. These conversations aim to spark important discussions about restoring trust and quality in science and scholarship at universities.