Pharmacologists call for radical reform – Watt?

Every year, biomedical scientists draw about one million new papers, but the disturbing truth is hidden in sight: much of this work cannot be copied. It's a huge crisis, it's a huge crisis – billions of dollars, eroding belief in science and preventing real breakthroughs. In an interview with Chemistry and Engineering News, Csaba Szabo, a professor at the University of Friborg in Switzerland, faced the chaos head-on, previewing his recently published books, Unreliable. His verdict? The scientific system cannot be repaired, and the Band-Aid fix will not be cut. A revolution will do everything.

Szabo's journey into this quagmire begins casually, a beer with his New York colleagues during his vacation. The question that keeps coming up is simple and troubling: “Why can no one reproduce someone else's discovery?” Scientists have complained about it for years, but Szabo decided to do something about it. The result is Unreliabledigging into undeniable reasons – from super competition and sloppy mistakes to statistical deception and outright fraud. His conclusions are as clear as provocation.

The scale of the problem

Szabo's discovery is jaw-dropping. In screening global scientific literature (not just polished papers on PubMed, but everything published anywhere) estimates that 90% of the content failed to fail the reproducibility test. Worse, he believes 20% to 30% are completely fabricated. “I didn't expect this number to be that high,” he admitted. “It's just ridiculous.” The financial losses were shocking. Paper mills – exaggerated clothing, forgery research to make profits – are billions of dollars each year. This is not a domestic industry; it is a scam on an industrial scale.

What's even more shocking is who can clean up the chaos. This is not stepped up by grant institutions, universities, journals or governments. Instead, it was a messy staff of private investigators – announcing unpaid jobs late at night while avoiding lawsuits from fraudsters they exposed. “What kind of system is this?” Szabo asked. This is a fair question.

No quick fix

Szabo has no stimulating words: the half measure tried so far (studio, list, etc.) has failed. “What we've tried doesn't work properly,” he said. “I'm trying to make some different suggestions.” His fix? A top-down overhaul of science professors, funding and publishing methods. He believes that this is an ecosystem and you can't fix a part without addressing the whole.

Regarding education, Szabo recommends dividing scientific training into two tracks: one for discovery and the other for integrity. The latter will train new professionals in experimental design, statistical rigor, data management and independent review, which are regulatory bodies embedded in the system. It's a bold idea, but it can specialize in scientific policing.

To provide funding, he targeted the current grant lottery, and scientists spent countless hours writing suggestions just to make money year by year for the same large institution. His radical advice: Give agencies money to pool related to strict reproducibility and integrity benchmarks. Let them figure out how to spend it. capture? It requires visionary leadership – supply shortage. Nevertheless, it can save researchers from giving away tedious efforts and focus it on practical science.

In terms of publications, Szabo hopes that top journals require replication supplements – independent labs verify findings before paper printing. This is a practical step to increase confidence in high-profile propositions. But he kept on. He also floated in the lab to shrink the scientific workforce and installed cameras and keystroke monitors. “There are cameras in the cockpit, behind the barista at Starbucks,” he said. “With so much money (and ultimately human life), why exempt the lab?

Controversy and hope

These ideas are not easy. Reducing the workforce and increasing surveillance will anger a large number of researchers. Szabo knows this. “I’m not saying my ideas are great,” he said. “I’d love to see more out-of-the-box ideas.” He is throwing darts to the board in hopes of sparking a wider debate.

A silver lining comes from an unexpected corner: Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford professor and President Trump’s draft pick leads the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Bhattacharya has publicly supported more funding for replicating research, which is Szabo Cheers. He said, “Amen to that tweet.”

If Bhattacharya is in charge, he can preside over the influence of NIH to promote reform. But Szabo is still cautious. NIH’s recent actions (such as stopping meetings and buying) are more punitive than progress. He insists that the real change must come from the top.

I don't know Jay, but if he got a job, I don't think he wanted to be the history of the man who destroyed American biomedical sciences. He wanted to be the history of the person who reformed American biomedical sciences. Maybe I'm still naive and want our politicians or governments to be too many, but this reform has to come from the top from the people who hold and control the money. The US system, especially the NIH, has great influence. If they really want to do something, their power is even more than they might realize.

https://cen.acs.org/policy/publishing/nobody-reproduce-yanybody-elses-findings/103/web/2025/02?sc=250305_news_news_eng_cennews_cennews_cennews_cennews_cennews_cennews_cennews_cen_cen_cen_member

Dark humor, clear truth

Szabo's comics are unreliable with dazzling comics than his prose. His favorite? The recruitment committee chooses the choice between plagiars, cheaters and harassers, just picking the most grants.

One of the most offensive people I think is the scientists at the “Publishing Workshop” [four scientists in a restaurant, ordering up a paper on herbal nanoparticles in cancer cells for publication in a journal with good impact factor]. The other is the recruitment committee, which studies the work of three candidates. One is a stealer, one is a cheater, and the third is a sexual harasser, who decides to go with the person who has the most grants. But that's no joke – I've seen this kind of thing already.

https://cen.acs.org/policy/publishing/nobody-reproduce-yanybody-elses-findings/103/web/2025/02?sc=250305_news_news_eng_cennews_cennews_cennews_cennews_cennews_cennews_cennews_cen_cen_cen_member

Finally, Szabo’s message is clear: science drowns out waste and forgery, and it’s time to stop pretending. His solutions may not be perfect, but they are the starting point. If we want science that science can trust, we need to rethink everything from classrooms to laboratory desks to diary pages. The ticking of the clock.

Csaba Szabo is unreliable and is available this month. This is a book that no one wants to write, but we all need to read it.

H/T Michael Em (No, not Mann)

Related