Science Corruption News Stories

Excerpts of Key Science Corruption News Stories in Major Media

Top leaders in the field of medicine and science have spoken out about the rampant corruption and conflicts of interest in those industries. Below are key excerpts of revealing news articles on science corruption from reliable news media sources. If any link fails to function, a paywall blocks full access, or the article is no longer available, try these digital tools.

Note: This comprehensive list of news stories is usually updated once a week. Explore our full index to revealing excerpts of key major media news stories on several dozen engaging topics. And don't miss amazing excerpts from 20 of the most revealing news articles ever published.

Pfizer subsidiaries in multiple countries, including Italy and Russia, were accused by the SEC in 2012 of paying bribes over about a decade to foreign officials to secure regulatory and formulary approvals, boost sales, and increase prescriptions, [an] SEC complaint shows. In China, one subsidiary allegedly created "points programs" that let doctors earn gifts based on prescribing its medications, according to the SEC, while in Croatia, another offered a "bonus program" that reportedly rewarded doctors with cash, international travel, or free products. Pfizer and an indirect subsidiary agreed to pay more than $45 million in separate settlements, without admitting or denying the allegations, the SEC reported. In a parallel action, Pfizer H.C.P., an indirect, wholly-owned healthcare-focused subsidiary, agreed to pay a $15 million penalty to resolve its investigation of FCPA violations after admitting to improper payments to foreign government officials, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. And in Greece, Poland, and Romania, Johnson & Johnson subsidiaries, employees, and agents were accused by regulators of using slush funds, sham contracts, and off-shore companies in the Isle of Man to reward doctors and administrators who ordered or prescribed its products, including surgical implants. The 2011 SEC complaint also accused the company of paying kickbacks in Iraq to obtain business.

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on Big Pharma profiteering.

The truth-seeking function of universities does not work properly without the presence of diverse viewpoints. This is especially true when it comes to contested social and political questions. Taboos, blind spots, groupthink and the politicization of scientific standards haven't just made academic research narrower and worse, these trends have alienated the general public and reduced public confidence in higher education ... across the ideological spectrum. Unsurprisingly, the increasing ideological conformity of the professoriate is reflected in the decreasing range of ideas that students encounter in the classroom. A recent national study shows a narrow range of perspectives included on undergraduate syllabi on such controversial topics as the conflict between Israel and Palestine, racial bias in the criminal justice system, and abortion. Professional training does not make professors immune to ordinary human biases. Today's cohort of scholarly experts remains vulnerable to the same "tyranny of public opinion" and "uncritical and intemperate partisanship" that the founders of the American Association of University Professors in 1915 warned academia to resist. This means that today's arguments about viewpoint diversity must be considered and judged in their historical and political contexts. [Academic disciplines] have lost a healthy amount of internal contestation, or have turned self-selection and self-governance into ideological capture.

Note: From gender medicine research, the psychology field, social justice movements, to Middle East politics, a recent study tracking 1 million people revealed that two-thirds of us are afraid to say what we believe in public, while other studies reveal a significant decline in people's motivation to share views that are unique or controversial. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on corruption in science.

The pandemic's most contentious question: Did SARS-CoV-2 emerge through natural spillover from animals to humans, or through a laboratory incident tied to research intended to anticipate the next outbreak? A flashpoint in that debate has been DEFUSE – a 2018 grant proposal submitted to DARPA, the Defense Department's advanced research agency. DEFUSE outlined plans to test spike-protein swaps and cleavage-site insertions in bat coronaviruses. Newly obtained NIH records suggest that the experimental concepts later spotlighted in DEFUSE – tuning bat coronavirus infectivity through spike swaps, receptor-binding changes, and cleavage-site insertions– were already embedded in multiple U.S.-funded coronavirus research projects years before the pandemic. NIH ... reviewers saw potential risk. In an internal "biohazard comment," a grants manager warned that recombinant coronaviruses engineered to enhance spike cleavage or strengthen ACE2 binding "may have novel and unexpected virulence phenotypes" – or, new and unpredictable traits that could make the virus more dangerous. NIH reviewed – and frequently approved – experiments designed to alter receptor-binding domains, swap spike proteins between viruses, or modify cleavage sites that influence how coronaviruses infect cells. American and Chinese researchers shared sequences, experimental ideas and preliminary findings in real time.

Note: Read how the NIH bypassed the oversight process, allowing controversial gain-of-function experiments to proceed unchecked. Watch our Mindful News Brief on the strong evidence that bioweapons research created COVID-19. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on COVID corruption.

In 2000 a study was published in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology that deemed the active ingredient in Roundup (glyphosate) was safe and not a human health risk. Since then, that study has been cited consistently as proof of Roundup's safety. Numerous other studies have shown that glyphosate could cause cancer and that the inert ingredients that are part of the patented Roundup formulation increase the toxicity of glyphosate. Further, the practice of using Roundup as a desiccant on small grain crops (oats, wheat and barley) prior to harvest, puts Roundup directly on grain that enters the human food chain. Since acquiring Monsanto in 2018, Bayer has paid out about $11 billion to settle almost 100,000 cancer-related lawsuits, with approximately 61,000 still pending. In December of 2025, another blow to the claimed safety of Roundup when the Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology journal withdrew the 2000 article that had touted Roundup's safety. While the study claimed to be independent and peer reviewed, it has come to light that Monsanto's scientists played a significant role in conceiving and writing the article. Oops. For decades, Roundup has been sold as an effective herbicide, one that was safe to humans and the environment and without it, "consequences would be dire". Companies like Bayer ... claim to produce safe products that help farmers thrive– real independent research refutes that.

Note: In addition to increasing cancer risk by 41%, glyphosate is linked to severe depression and cognitive decline. Our latest Substack, "The Pesticide Crisis Reveals The Dark Side of Science. We Have The Solutions to Regenerate," uncovers the scope of Monsanto's media propaganda machine and the widespread conspiracy to poison our food, air, and along with the powerful remedies and solutions to this crisis. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on corruption in science and toxic chemicals.

Jeffrey Epstein may have fathered a number of secret children, including one by a teenager who alleges her daughter was taken from her just minutes after her birth. The claims have surfaced following the release of the latest instalment of the Epstein files, which appears to include an email sent to the paedophile by the former Duchess of York. In this email, dated September 21, 2011, Sarah Ferguson appears to congratulate Epstein on the birth of a "baby boy" and offer her "love, friendship and congratulations" after hearing about the news from "The Duke", possibly referring to her ex-husband Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. In addition, a 2002 diary entry authored by an Epstein victim alleges that she gave birth to a baby girl at the age of 16 or 17. A child born in 2002 would be 23-24-years-old now. The diary entry includes a copy of a pregnancy scan dated 20 weeks gestation. The child appears to have been taken from her mother 10 minutes after birth, which the woman alleges was done under the supervision of Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's former girlfriend. "She was born, I heard her cries!" the victim wrote. "I saw this tiny head and body in between the doctor's hands. Ghislaine said she was beautiful. Where is she?" In a heartbreaking statement, she says: "I miss the person I was before I was made into what feels like a human incubator." The diary was shared by the woman's lawyers, Wigdor LLP, with federal prosecutors investigating Epstein and Maxwell.

Note: In our latest Substack, "Epstein Files Pt. 2: Beyond Sex Trafficking–Zorro Ranch and a Darker Scientific Agenda," we explore the diary entries mentioned in this article and how it fit neatly into the larger picture now emerging from the newly-public information. Specifically, Epstein's deep ties to the scientific elite and their active exploration into eugenics, designer babies, human cloning, social engineering, and other ethically questionable human experimentation practices.

Jeffrey Epstein may have forced an underage victim to carry his child in a "Nazi"-like effort to create a "superior gene pool," according to documents released by the Department of Justice. Among the more than three million Epstein files released last week is a harrowing diary penned by an alleged victim, who wrote that she was a "human incubator" for Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Minutes after giving birth, she wrote that the child was snatched away from her. The contents of the diary have not been verified, and the woman's accusations against an Epstein associate have been disputed in court. The DOJ has cautioned that the newly published files may contain "fake or falsely submitted" materials. The first-person narrative makes several references to New Mexico, where the deceased sex offender owned a sprawling ranch outside Santa Fe. Epstein planned to use the estate to impregnate women in an effort to "seed the human race with his DNA," The New York Times reported in 2019, citing his acquaintances and public records. The woman claims to have given birth around 2002, when she would have been either 16 or 17 years old. In the entry, she recounts the experience of going into labor, claiming that a doctor and Maxwell were both present, and that her bed was soaked in blood. In her posthumous memoir, Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre also claimed that Epstein and Maxwell asked her to carry their child in 2002.

Note: In our latest Substack, "Epstein Files Pt. 2: Beyond Sex Trafficking–Zorro Ranch and a Darker Scientific Agenda," we explore the diary entries mentioned in this article and how they fit neatly into the larger picture now emerging from the newly-public information. Specifically, Epstein's deep ties to the scientific elite and their active exploration into eugenics, designer babies, human cloning, social engineering, and other ethically questionable human experimentation practices.

The first thing Lana Ponting remembers about the Allan Memorial Institute, a former psychiatric hospital in Montreal, Canada, is the smell. That hospital ... would be her home for a month in April 1958, after a judge ordered the then-16-year-old to undergo treatment for "disobedient" behaviour. Ms Ponting became one of thousands of people experimented on as part of the CIA's top-secret research into mind control. Now, she is one of two named plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit for Canadian victims of the experiments. She became an unwitting participant in covert CIA experiments known as MK-Ultra. The Cold War project tested the effects of psychedelic drugs like LSD, electroshock treatments and brainwashing techniques on human beings without their consent. Over 100 institutions – hospitals, prisons and schools – in the US and Canada were involved. At the Allan, McGill University researcher Dr Ewen Cameron drugged patients and made them listen to recordings, sometimes thousands of times. The technique was a form of "psychic driving," says doctoral student Jordan Torbay. "Essentially the minds of patients were manipulated using verbal cues," she says, adding he also looked at the effects of sleep drugs, forced sensory deprivation, and induced coma. Medical records show Ms Ponting was given LSD, as well as drugs like sodium amytal, a barbiturate, desoxyn, a stimulant, as well as nitrous oxide gas, a sedative known as laughing gas.

Note: Learn more about the MKUltra Program in our comprehensive Military-Intelligence Corruption Information Center. For more, read our concise summaries of news articles on intelligence agency corruption and mind control.

A scientific study that regulators around the world relied on for decades to justify continued approval of glyphosate was quietly retracted last Friday over serious ethical issues including secret authorship by Monsanto employees – raising questions about the pesticide-approval process in the U.S. and globally. The April 2000 study by Gary Williams, Robert Kroes and Ian Munro – which concluded glyphosate does not pose a health risk to humans at typical exposure levels – was ghostwritten by Monsanto employees, and was "based solely on unpublished studies from Monsanto," wrote Martin van den Berg, co-editor-in-chief of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. It also ignored "multiple other long-term chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies" that were available at the time. Some of the study authors may also have received undisclosed financial compensation from Monsanto, he noted. The retraction came years after internal corporate documents first revealed in 2017 that Monsanto employees were heavily involved in drafting the paper. "What took them so long to retract it?" asked Michael Hansen, senior scientist of advocacy at Consumer Reports. The ghostwritten paper is in the top 0.1% of citations among academic papers discussing glyphosate. The retraction exposes the flaws of a regulatory system that relies heavily on corporate research, and an academic publishing system that is often used as a tool for corporate product defense.

Note: Our latest Substack, "The Pesticide Crisis Reveals The Dark Side of Science. We Have The Solutions to Regenerate," uncovers the scope of Monsanto's media propaganda machine and the widespread conspiracy to poison our food, air, and along with the powerful remedies and solutions to this crisis. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on toxic chemicals and corruption in science.

In 2001, the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (JAACAP) published a paper declaring that the antidepressant paroxetine (Paxil) was "generally well tolerated and effective" for adolescent depression. That conclusion was false. The manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), knew from its own data that the drug failed to outperform placebo and carried a serious risk of suicidal behaviour. Instead of telling the truth, GSK hired a public-relations firm to ghostwrite the paper, enlisted academic co-authors who never saw the raw data, and used the publication to promote Paxil to doctors treating children. It became known as Study 329 – one of the most infamous cases of scientific fraud in modern psychiatry. The paper remained in circulation – cited hundreds of times, shaping prescribing habits, and legitimising a lie that cost young lives. The paper listed 22 authors – two were GSK employees, and most had never reviewed the raw data or disclosed their financial ties to the company. Once the article appeared in print, GSK's sales force distributed it to thousands of doctors as "proof" that Paxil worked in teens. Within three years, the company made more than a billion dollars from what it called the "adolescent market." In 2003, the FDA concluded: "There is currently no evidence that Paxil is effective in children and adolescents with major depressive disorder." In 2012, GSK pleaded guilty and paid a $3 billion settlement to resolve criminal and civil charges.

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on Big Pharma profiteering and mental health.

As scientists who have worked on the science of solar geoengineering for decades, we have grown increasingly concerned about the emerging efforts to start and fund private companies to build and deploy technologies that could alter the climate of the planet. The basic idea behind solar geoengineering, or what we now prefer to call sunlight reflection methods (SRM), is that humans might reduce climate change by making the Earth a bit more reflective, partially counteracting the warming caused by the accumulation of greenhouse gases. Many people already distrust the idea of engineering the atmosphere–at whichever scale–to address climate change, fearing negative side effects, inequitable impacts on different parts of the world, or the prospect that a world expecting such solutions will feel less pressure to address the root causes of climate change. Notably, Stardust says on its website that it has developed novel particles that can be injected into the atmosphere to reflect away more sunlight, asserting that they're "chemically inert in the stratosphere, and safe for humans and ecosystems." But it's nonsense for the company to claim they can make particles that are inert in the stratosphere. Even diamonds, which are extraordinarily nonreactive, would alter stratospheric chemistry. Any particle may become coated by background sulfuric acid in the stratosphere. That could accelerate the loss of the protective ozone layer.

Note: Modifying the atmosphere to dim the sun involves catastrophic risks. Regenerative farming is far safer and more promising for stabilizing the climate. In our latest Substack, "Geoengineering is a Weapon That's Been Rebranded as Climate Science. There's a Better Way To Heal the Earth," we present credible evidence and current information showing that weather modification technologies are not only real, but that they are being secretly propagated by multiple groups with differing agendas.

Deflecting the sun to fight climate change could trigger droughts and hurricanes, the Royal Society has warned. In a new report, experts argued solar radiation modification (SRM) could reduce global temperatures but "worsen rather than ease" climate change and make the sky look less blue. In May, the Government's Advanced Research and Invention Agency (Aria) announced Ł56.8m for 21 "climate cooling" projects, which include injecting aerosols into the sky to reflect sunlight away from Earth. However, the report found there were "major uncertainties" and argued the plan may have devastating knock-on effects, particularly if deployed by rogue groups. Prof Jim Haywood, of atmospheric science at the University of Exeter, said: "What you do in one place can cause climate change in a different place. "Stratospheric aerosol injection deployment in the northern hemisphere could impact the position of the tropical monsoon and lead to droughts in sub-Saharan Africa. "Everyone there relies on subsistence farming, so it quickly devastates if there is a drought there. "In the southern hemisphere, it could lead to an increase in North Atlantic hurricane frequency and intensity, it could lead to winter droughts over the Mediterranean and the Iberian Peninsula." A "termination effect" whereby sun dimming technology was suddenly stopped, could also lead to rapid warming of up to 2C in decades, and cause devastating effects for ecosystems.

Note: Modifying the atmosphere to dim the sun involves catastrophic risks. Regenerative farming is far safer and more promising for stabilizing the climate. In our latest Substack, "Geoengineering is a Weapon That's Been Rebranded as Climate Science. There's a Better Way To Heal the Earth," we present credible evidence and current information showing that weather modification technologies are not only real, but that they are being secretly propagated by multiple groups with differing agendas.

Last year, a climate scientist named Patrick Brown, along with seven co-authors, published a study in the journal Nature about the connections between wildfires in California and global warming. Dr. Brown confessed in a Free Press article that he had framed his research not just to reflect the truth, but to fit within what he described as the climate alarmist storyline preferred by prestigious journals in the United States. He did this, he says, by intentionally focusing only on climate as a factor in wildfires, and not on the myriad other causes that contribute to the blazes consuming ever more land across the country. The formula for getting published, he wrote, "is more about shaping your research in specific ways to support pre-approved narratives than it is about generating useful knowledge for society." And when it comes to climate science, he alleged, that preapproved narrative is that "climate change impacts are pervasive and catastrophic." [Climate scientist] Dr. Pielke argues that many of the widely cited cost estimates connecting weather disasters to climate change are mistaken. (Climate advocates regularly assert that climate change is costing the U.S. billions of dollars every year.) His research, he says, shows that extreme weather appears costlier because properties are more valuable. In other words, wealth increase is the real story. He regularly takes issue with media portrayals of extreme weather. The reality is more complex, he says. If climate science doesn't make space for alternative viewpoints, it risks its foundational ideals of open inquiry and debate and rigorous, evidence-based critiques,

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on climate change and corruption in science.

For years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has claimed that human-caused climate change has accelerated sea level rise. But that claim is false. This does not mean that climate change isn't happening. It is. It simply means that it has not caused the sea level to rise. Top scientists know this fact and have deliberately misrepresented it for years, deceiving the public. In September, I reported on one of the first global studies of sea level rise that used tide-gauge data, which is the only real-world data that goes back long enough, to the mid-19th Century, that would allow one to detect whether sea level rise had accelerated, decelerated, or remained steady. The only reliable long-term real-world data is tide gauge data, and they do not show acceleration. Since then, I exchanged over 50 emails with one of the world's leading sea level rise scientists, Robert Kopp from Rutgers University, and heard back from IPCC, NASA, and NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. What I learned shocked me. For years, the world's top scientists have known that they cannot prove there has been an acceleration of sea level rise, and yet they have told the public that they can. We've known since 2018 that 89% of the atoll islands that scientists and the media claimed would be destroyed by sea level rise had instead grown or stayed the same size. Sea level rise is not "observably accelerating" over time horizons that would show a trend. The only scientific basis for claiming it is accelerating is through modeling. The observable tide-gauge data do not show this.

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on climate change and corruption in science.

TrineDay Books announces the release of Blue Butterfly: Inside the Diary of an Epstein Survivor, a gripping memoir of Survivor Juliette Bryant that exposes Jeffrey Epstein's previously unreported medical crimes. Juliette's firsthand testimony ... unravels Epstein's deep ties to the shadowy intelligence community that controlled him. It explores how the two-time college dropout amassed a fortune of half a billion dollars while spending his days abusing young girls. Twenty-three years ago, on September 26, 2002, Jeffrey Epstein touched down in Cape Town with a high-profile entourage. That night, 20-year-old Juliette Bryant, a psychology student and aspiring model, was recruited and promised a future with the lingerie retailer Victoria's Secret. Instead, she found herself ensnared in a global network of abuse. Juliette was trafficked across continents and American states, taken to all of Epstein's luxury residences, and introduced to co-conspirators who enabled his operations to flourish in plain sight. The sexual abuse and psychological manipulation Juliette endured were pervasive as she made her final trip to Epstein's remote Zorro Ranch in New Mexico. There, in June 2004, Juliette awoke paralyzed in a laboratory, while a female doctor operated on her–without her knowledge or consent. While other books have documented his trafficking network, Blue Butterfly explores his obsession with elite eugenics, artificial intelligence, transhumanism, cryogenics, and cloning.

Note: Read our comprehensive Substack investigation covering the connection between Epstein's child sex trafficking ring and intelligence agency sexual blackmail operations. For more, read our concise summaries of news articles on Jeffrey Epstein's criminal enterprise.

Environmental and Indigenous activists declared Thursday that "geoengineering fails again," welcoming the shutdown of a project that aimed to use "a reflective material to protect and restore Arctic sea ice." "While our climate impact simulations have shown promising results ... recent ecotoxicological tests have revealed potential risks to the Arctic food chain," the [Arctic Ice Project] team said. Panganga Pungowiyi, climate geoengineering organizer at Indigenous Environmental Network, called the decision "long overdue." "We are concerned for the community members in Utqiaġvik who were made to spread football fields of this material onto their frozen lake," Pungowiyi explained. "Our concerns about the reckless use of harmful materials were dismissed. We continually showed up in defense of free prior and informed consent, and made our presence known." "We continue to state firmly that nature is not a laboratory; it is a living entity we are in relationship with," the organizer added. "Geoengineering approaches do nothing to address the root causes of the climate crisis and instead delay real solutions, offering a free pass to polluters," [said Mary Church at the Center for International Environmental Law]. "Following the recent reaffirmation of the global moratorium on geoengineering at the U.N. biodiversity summit in Colombia, governments need to act to prevent harmful outdoor experiments."

Note: In our latest Substack, "Geoengineering is a Weapon That's Been Rebranded as Climate Science. There's a Better Way To Heal the Earth," we present credible evidence and current information showing that weather modification technologies are not only real, but that they are being secretly propagated by multiple groups with differing agendas. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on geoengineering.

The transparency of donations to the World Health Organization (WHO) Foundation–an independent body that seeks funds from across industry, civil society and governments, and awards grants to the WHO – has plummeted over its first 3 years of operations, a new analysis has found. The analysis found that the majority of donors are not publicly disclosed, including some unnamed gifts as big as $11 million, which raises concerns about the potential "level of outside influence and role of commercial interests in setting WHO priorities," the researchers wrote. In 2020, the foundation was set up to solicit funds from a wider range of donors than the WHO can directly accept, including wealthy individuals and corporations. Some academics and civil society organizations are concerned that accepting donations from industry, such as businesses selling alcohol and infant formula, poses a conflict of interest. Evidence suggests that some companies use donations "as opportunities to distract or reframe product harms.., and assist wider lobbying efforts against public health regulation," wrote the authors of the new analysis. Using a scale to judge transparency in donations developed by Open Democracy, an independent international media platform, the researchers gave the WHO Foundation a D grade. This grade is for organizations that only name a minority of funders and not in a systematic way, putting it on par with some ‘dark money' think tanks.

Note: Concerns about WHO's growing dependence on opaque funding are not abstract. Past investigations show how Purdue Pharma influenced WHO opioid guidelines to expand sales globally and how Coca-Cola–linked consultants shaped WHO's aspartame reviews. Bill Gates' hundreds of millions to WHO now give him outsized influence to prioritize corporate interests under the guise of public health philanthropy, which have led to mass suicides in India, worsening environmental degradation and poverty in Africa, and increasing corporate control over the media.

The forensic scientist Claire Glynn estimated that more than 40 million people have sent in their DNA and personal data for direct-to-consumer genetic testing, mostly to map their ancestry and find relatives. Since 2020, at least two genetic genealogy firms have been hacked and at least one had its genomic data leaked. Yet when discussing future risks of genetic technology, the security policy community has largely focused on spectacular scenarios of genetically tailored bioweapons or artificial intelligence (AI) engineered superbugs. A more imminent weaponization concern is more straightforward: the risk that nefarious actors use the genetic techniques ... to frame, defame, or even assassinate targets. A Russian parliamentary report from 2023 claimed that "by using foreign biological facilities, the United States can collect and study pathogens that can infect a specific genotype of humans." Designer bioweapons, if ever successfully developed, produced, and tested, would indeed pose a major threat. Unscrupulous actors with access to DNA synthesis infrastructure could ... frame someone for a crime such as murder, for example, by using DNA that synthetically reproduces the DNA regions used in forensic crime analysis. The research and policy communities must dedicate resources not simply to dystopian, low-probability threats like AI designed bioweapons, but also to gray zone genomics and smaller-scale, but higher probability, scenarios for misuse.

Note: For more, read our concise summaries of news articles on corruption in biotech.

Trust in academic research is crucial. This trust, however, could be affected by the presence of conflicts of interest (CoIs), situations where a specific interest of the researcher could compromise the researcher's impartiality. Academic research in fields such as economics, medicine, and many others is becoming more costly and often depends on funding or access to databases controlled by private parties. To what extent do these relationships undermine trust in research? In our new NBER working paper, we address this ... by examining how different types of CoIs shape perceptions of the trustworthiness of economic research. Trust in the results declined across all groups (on average by 30%) following the disclosure of a CoI, despite the research being peer-reviewed and published in a prestigious academic journal. This decline was moderated by expertise, with average Americans experiencing greater declines in trust than "elite" economists (who publish in the top journals). Nonetheless, even elite economists experienced a drop in trust. Financial incentives (such as funding) were not the sole or the most significant factor influencing trust. Instead, privileged access to data had the most pronounced effect. When research utilized private data aligned with the interests of the data provider, trust in the results decreased by over 20%. Trust dropped by approximately 50% if the data provider retained review rights over the research outcomes.

Note: "Trust the science" sounds noble–until you realize that even top editors of world-renowned journals have warned that much of published medical research is unreliable, distorted by fraud, corporate influence, and conflicts of interest. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on corruption in science.

Financed partly with US taxpayers dollars, [a] firm in Missouri called v-Fluence [was] founded by former Monsanto executive Jay Byrne. [v-Fluence] established a "private social network" to counter resistance to pesticides and genetically modified (GM) crops. A profile of former New York Times food writer Mark Bittman ... includes a description of where he lives, details of two marriages and personal hobbies, and an extensive Criticisms section. Bittman said that it was a "terrible thing," for taxpayer dollars to be used to help a PR agency "work against sincere, legitimate, and scientific efforts to do agriculture better." Syngenta signed a contract with v-Fluence in 2002 to help the company deal with negative information coming to light about its paraquat herbicides. v-Fluence went on to help Syngenta create false or misleading online content that was "Paraquat-friendly," used search engine optimization to suppress negative information about paraquat in Internet searches and investigated the social media pages of victims who reported injuries to Syngenta's crisis hotline. Syngenta's internal research found adverse effects of paraquat on brain tissue decades ago but the company withheld that information from regulators, instead working to discredit independent science linking the chemical to brain disease and developing a "SWAT team" to counter critics. In its response to those stories, Syngenta asserted that no "peer-reviewed scientific publication has established a causal connection between paraquat and Parkinson's disease."

Note: Read more about how v-Fluence was used to censor the web and silence dissenting voices. "Trust the science" sounds noble–until you realize that even top editors of world-renowned journals have warned that much of published medical research is unreliable, distorted by fraud, corporate influence, and conflicts of interest.

Tens of thousands of bogus research papers are being published in journals in an international scandal that is worsening every year, scientists have warned. Medical research is being compromised, drug development hindered and promising academic research jeopardised thanks to a global wave of sham science that is sweeping laboratories and universities. Last year the annual number of papers retracted by research journals topped 10,000 for the first time. Most analysts believe the figure is only the tip of an iceberg of scientific fraud. The startling rise in the publication of sham science papers has its roots in China, where young doctors and scientists seeking promotion were required to have published scientific papers. Shadow organisations – known as "paper mills" – began to supply fabricated work for publication in journals there. The practice has since spread to India, Iran, Russia, former Soviet Union states and eastern Europe, with paper mills supplying fabricated studies to more and more journals as increasing numbers of young scientists try to boost their careers by claiming false research experience. In some cases, journal editors have been bribed to accept articles, while paper mills have managed to establish their own agents as guest editors who then allow reams of falsified work to be published. One study, by Nature, revealed that in 2013 there were just over 1,000 retractions. In 2022, the figure topped 4,000 before jumping to more than 10,000 last year.

Note: According to The Lancet, half of all scientific literature may simply be untrue. "Trust the science" sounds noble–until you realize that even top editors of world-renowned journals have warned that much of published medical research is unreliable, distorted by fraud, corporate influence, and conflicts of interest. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on corruption in science.

Important Note: Explore our full index to revealing excerpts of key major media news stories on several dozen engaging topics. And don't miss amazing excerpts from 20 of the most revealing news articles ever published.