November 3, 2023 • 26 mins
What if the very foundations of scientific institutions were shaky? Join us as we flip the lid on the disconcerting rise in scientific misconduct, a phenomenon that's not just limited to the quantum level but is a stark reality in our daily news. This episode explores the deterioration of trust in esteemed places like Stanford and Harvard, referencing the film Oppenheimer to highlight the gravity of the issue. In the quest for truth, we further expose the threefold increase in retractions, from 40 in 2000 to a staggering 5222 today, a statistic that screams for attention.
Regrettably, scientific fraud isn't a harmless crime contained within the walls of research labs. Its repercussions echo far and wide, as seen with the disastrous fallout of Joachim Boldt's misleading results, a case that led to fatal consequences. Unravel the complex web of scientific misinformation with us, as we dissect the damaging impact of such misconduct on research integrity and our trust in scientific institutions. As we wrap up this episode, we express our heartfelt gratitude to you, our listeners, for accompanying us on this enlightening journey into the belly of the science world. Buckle up, for trust is a fragile thing, and we're here to test its limits.
Let's get into it!
Follow us!
Email us: TheCatchupCast@Gmail.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
John (00:00):
Here's what we're talking about.
We're talking about ascientific dishonesty, right?
So what's interesting aboutthis for me personally is I
watched Oppenheimer and then Iwatched it again, right, and two
times, two times.
Look at it.
(00:20):
Good to see you.
Thanks for jumping on the livestream with us.
Yeah, we think we got a goodtopic in store here.
So, yeah, second time I watchedit, I watched it with Fred and
I was thinking, you know, atleast I was portrayed in the
movies.
There wasn't anyone that wasoverseeing this group of
(00:46):
physicists, right?
That's a great movie.
I definitely highly endorse it.
So I would definitely recommendseeing it.
Denison (00:53):
If you can see it in one of the few IMAX theaters
that are in the country thathave the.
I forgot what the specificratio it is, but it's supposed
to be really, really, really,really like to see it in the
perfect deal.
It's supposed to be like anIMAX theater, like a specific
(01:15):
IMAX theater.
John (01:15):
So what did you think?
Did you get to see it that wayor no?
Oh, no, no, yeah me neither.
I did Still look great, right,I did see it in IMAX, but also
I'm going to deviate for asecond, because it reminds me of
Denison.
(01:36):
Did you see Mission Impossibleyet?
Denison (01:38):
I'm not.
John (01:39):
I think I saw it.
Denison (01:40):
It's impossible, man.
John (01:42):
Every movie suggesting I give Denison.
You know he does he's like ohyeah, yeah, definitely doesn't
see it.
Oh man.
Denison (01:52):
Hey, man, I'm busy.
I am busy, you know, yeah, butnot too busy.
John (01:58):
See Hoppingheimer, which was a three hour movie, anyway,
let's give you a hard time, but75 millimeter film is what
Catherine's saying.
So that's it.
But yes, really, what I'msaying with this is that no one
(02:19):
was there to give oversight,really, for Hoppingheimer, right
?
Of course that's understandable, right, there was no one
smarter on quantum research thanhim.
You know what I mean At thetime.
And so, yeah, I mean it'sinteresting, I was just thinking
about that.
(02:39):
There's no oversight for thesepeople who are dictating not
dictating, but just giving usexplanations for why things
happen, right?
So this is where today's topiccomes in, the Guardian, which I
will say has a history ofblowing things out of proportion
(03:00):
, although I will not say that'swhat they're doing on this one,
I don't know.
But you know, regardless ofthat, I still will take this for
Westworth.
But they have reports ofscientific misconduct, with
significant cases at Stanfordand Harvard.
(03:22):
Stanford's president resignedafter investigations highlighted
issues in his research, but hedidn't falsify any data.
So that's different.
A guy in Harvard BusinessSchool faced accusations of
false, fine research on get thishonesty right, which is
(03:46):
interesting, that's a veryinteresting.
Right, and so our discussiontonight doesn't have to be about
things on the quantum level,right?
A lot of these things are stuffthat you get in your news feed
(04:06):
on a daily basis, right?
Like?
A new study shows that applesare 80% more likely, if eaten
every day, to keep the doctoraway, but that research could
have been falsified.
Yeah, that's true.
This one was trying not tolaugh more on that, it was funny
(04:28):
, but yeah.
So I think it's important thatwe can trust in these scientific
institutions, and that's whatmakes this story so interesting.
So I say we go ahead and slapright into it.
What's going on?
Everybody, I'm John and I'mDenison, and this is the catch
(04:49):
up.
(05:11):
Before we get back into ourtopic tonight, I want to remind
you guys of three best ways tosupport this show.
Gotta wait for the props.
There's your three, there'sintro into three, but number one
, of course.
Okay, I was confused as to whatthat was at first.
(05:31):
Number one is leave us a ratingreview, let us know what you
think of each episode and theshow as a whole.
Every rating review helps usgrow wherever you're listening,
wherever you're watching andsubscribe if you like.
It says well, number two, or atoa.
(05:53):
That's actually three.
My bad, oh, a wash, that thingwas Chris.
All right, all right.
So number two is If you'relistening on the audio, thank
you, thank you, sure, we gotthat.
If you're listening on theaudio, you're gonna want to jump
on the Facebook or the YouTubewith us.
(06:13):
We go live every single weekand if you subscribe or give us
a follow, you can jump on andjoin the discussion with us in
real time.
It's something that we'vereally enjoyed doing and I'd
love to get your feedback as wediscussed.
And number three oh my gosh,the USB drive.
That's a.
It's a unique addition to thiscount.
(06:35):
Number three If you want tosupport us monetarily, because
it does cost to put this show on, we have really good, solid,
quality, clean merchandise atthe link below, wherever you're
listening, wherever you'rewatching, we got shirts, we got
hats, we got long sleeves,hoodies if you want to prepare
(06:57):
for the winter really early, andwe also have phone cases, mugs
and a little bit more.
Man.
There you go, there's all threeright there.
So, all right, let's.
Let's roll back into thisdiscussion, man.
So, as I said, those are justsome examples of, you know,
(07:20):
scientific negligence, I guess.
So a watchdog website calledretraction watch has reported on
numerous incident instances ofmisconduct and knowing that most
who don't occur at institutionslike Stanford or Harvard but
retraction sign as in, you knowyou have to retract your
(07:40):
statement and fix it.
Have searched from 40 in 2000to 5222.
That's a gigantic increase.
Denison (07:51):
Yeah, it's a very big jump.
John (07:54):
What are these people doing?
Playing Candy Crush Whilethey're splitting atoms?
Denison (07:59):
no, they're just making all the claims, man, all the
claim.
John (08:04):
Yeah, yeah, you know what I think it did.
I think it created a Pokemon inreal life.
Denison (08:10):
That's not true, actually my bad, it was a fever
dream right.
John (08:17):
So, according to this article that we're referencing,
that may actually be anunderestimation of the actual
amount of misconduct.
There could be more.
That's even, I would think.
Well, actually, I want to askyou which Catherine's calling
these alternative facts?
(08:38):
I want to wish oh, that's theScientific claims or alternative
facts?
I feel that.
So tell me, man, what do youthink is causing the spikes and
misinformation, the what'sdifferent about 2022 Versus 2000
(08:58):
?
Denison (08:58):
I Mean I think there's a lot you know, especially when
it comes to because it was 2000,the year 2000, I mean there's
been a lot that's happened andyou know to you know the two
decades, essentially Because Imean you have the age of social
(09:24):
media.
Information is far moreavailable to users than they
have then it has ever been,especially in the 2000s right,
it was just infant stages of theinternet, and then Also, I
think there's so much buzzaround different scientific
(09:47):
studies that people are justclamoring for at least my
opinion is that people are justclaiming for more and more
published studies to come out orwhatever like that, and for
more and more people just toread that cool headline.
Right, more news outletslooking for that really cool
headline.
(10:07):
Like you know, three in therecent studies stated that three
in five people may experience afright in their living room in
the next 10 days, or somethinglike that.
John (10:22):
Whoa a fright, but it's not a true story, by the way,
against your lucks, man.
Denison (10:32):
So you know, I think there's a lot of news outlets
that are just super gung-hoabout like jumping into that
process and I think the studiesare kind of following into that
same foot, into those samefootsteps, where they're
publishing more info out beforeit's like fully vetted and stuff
(10:54):
, because you know it's a lot ofrecanting their statements or
something similar to that.
John (10:59):
Yeah, no, I feel that, man .
Well, according to this,according to this study, two
main factors contribute to thisspike Volunteers who scrutinize
academic literature forinconsistencies, which I guess
was not happening back then in2000.
(11:22):
And the realization bypublishers that their models are
vulnerable to paper mills thatsell entire research materials.
So paper mills was in quotes,but yeah, those research
materials could go out.
So let's look at this in adifferent scope.
(11:46):
Right, like red wine bad foryou, red wine good for you, red
wine bad for you, right?
This could be a why they didn'thave as much oversight back
then as they do now.
So now there's more concern,kind of like what you were
saying, and more oversight nowtoo, which would lead to more
issues being found.
(12:07):
So it makes you wonder whathave we learned, or thought we
learned, from decades oldresearch?
I believe that those issueswould probably have come to
light, because usually those arepublic issues, public research
that can be studied and lookedover.
Well, I find that reallyinteresting.
(12:29):
Catherine says conjecture andopinion have been allowed to be
held at the same time at thesame level of scientific results
.
That can be repeated byscientific method.
That's true.
It depends on the theory, right?
Certain theories get morepublicity than others, like the
theory of relativity, right.
We basically take the theory ofgravity.
(12:50):
It's a theory, right, but Ithink we all experience it every
day, you know.
So, yeah, those type of things.
But then other things, yeah,you have to have proven and are
able to prove right.
You can't prove or disprovegravity with at least what they
(13:13):
had when the theory was firstdevised, if you will.
Denison (13:19):
Yeah, yeah, sorry, go ahead.
John (13:23):
But yeah, according to this, gravity is both a theory
and a law.
The law of gravity calculatesthe amount of attraction, while
the theory describes why objectsattract each other in the first
place.
That's really interesting.
It's both, you know.
Denison (13:42):
That is interesting.
It's just the different sidesin which you're looking at it.
One is, I guess the factoidportion of it is more like this
is exactly what we can observe,and then the rest of it is more
along the lines of based on whatwe have observed, this is our
(14:02):
opinion or thought process ofhow and why things do what they
do, or whatever like that whenit comes to gravity.
So that is a really cool way tothink about it, One that I
haven't really thought of, youknow.
John (14:19):
Sure, yeah, I find that all interesting.
So this is scientific fraud,which is what I was leaning into
on this.
Scientific fraud isn't just aprofessional issue.
It can endanger lives, as seenin the case of Joaquin Bolt.
(14:40):
His misleading results on ablood substitute had fatal
consequences.
A blood substitute, bro.
This dude was trying to be likeah, you need blood?
Don't have it, but try thispeanut butter instead.
Denison (14:59):
Yeah, you'll be good, you'll be right as rain.
John (15:02):
Yeah, right as rain.
So this is a Germananesthesiologist who
no-transcript he has 186retractions and is the highest.
He has the most retractions ofanyone.
Oh, wow, yeah.
(15:23):
So he studied a bloodsubstitute that was used in
hospitals across Europe.
His results, which werepublished around 1990 and 2009
and widely cited, suggested thatthe product used to help keep
blood pressure in the deliveryof oxygen to cells adequate with
saving lives.
(15:44):
After his fraud came to lightand researchers reanalyzed all
the available data, whileleaving Bull's results out, it
turned out the opposite was truethe substitute was associated
with a significant increasedrisk of mortality and acute
kidney injury.
Oh, wow, that's insane man.
Denison (16:07):
That is, that is you know, and this really kind of
talks more about the need forpeer review, right?
Because?
John (16:25):
Which is part of the scientific method, by the way,
it is.
Denison (16:28):
It is.
Everybody gets so gung-ho abouttheir results that they kind of
skip that portion.
But I think it's so importantthat the peer review stage of
these studies gets properlypursued, because you get moments
(16:48):
where you're having to retractyour statement because after
peer review they've seen theflaws in their experiment or the
flaws in how they wereresearching things or if there
was bias or anything like that.
It shows up there, usuallyright, and kind of like Pardon
(17:13):
me Kind of like the fact thatmore people are able to access
these studies than they werebefore.
there is a higher percentage ofplenty of researchers being able
to jump in from across theworld to be able to jump in on
these studies and look at themand scrutinize them and review
(17:35):
them and say like, ah no, thisisn't working.
John (17:38):
You know they do it in a quicker amount of time too,
correct, correct.
Yeah, there's a scene inOppenheimer where he waits.
Well, he has to go to Princetonto talk to Albert Einstein to
(18:00):
ask him what he thinks about hisfindings, and it results to
nuclear fusion, right, orfission Dang it, I always do
that, but no worries.
But yeah, that's what makes itdifferent.
That's also what makes itsurprising to me that they are
so much higher.
It should be easier than everto oversee this kind of stuff.
(18:23):
Yeah.
Denison (18:24):
Yeah, you would think.
But I mean, there's tons ofpeople who are doing research,
right?
John (18:32):
That's true.
It could just be a flat line,because they're all able to be
more busy with their studies,you know.
Denison (18:39):
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
We live in an age where it's somuch easier because of
technology to bring more peoplein to do different types of
studies and stuff like that.
Think about it If you need toresearch something that, at
least for the most part, youjust needed people's verbal
communication, you can easily dothat just via Teams or Zoom.
(19:04):
Never before was really an easyway to do it.
I mean sure you can get on thephone and call someone, but it's
not going to be the same asdoing a Zoom call or a Teams
call.
You have that face-to-faceinteraction going.
John (19:22):
Definitely yeah, and to the point you're making too.
This is interesting to me.
Publishers and journals havebeen criticized for slow
responses, with some retractionsdelayed for years.
Universities often investigateallegations internally, which
(19:44):
might not ensure unbiasedresults.
Of course I get that, but yeah,it seems like there's a
reluctancy, maybe even among thescientific community, of not
wanting to rat people out forbeing wrong or just being too
(20:07):
self-focused on their own works.
I don't know.
Yeah, it's interesting man.
Denison (20:16):
Yeah, it is.
I know we were talking aboutthis a little bit earlier, but
it's kind of like the greatexample of this I feel like is
there's a.
There was an article that cameout about a week ago or so about
(20:37):
a team of researchers that hadfound a material that is able to
be a superconductor at roomtemperature.
Why this is so significant isbecause superconductors for them
to be able to do their reallyreally cool properties of
(20:58):
levitation and some other insuperposition or whatever like
that there's a couple otherthings that they can do, but
essentially the only way forthat to happen is for them to be
incredibly cooled to a highamount, right To a huge degree.
That takes a lot of energy anda lot of time and a lot of
(21:24):
effort to get it cooled downlike that.
Then, even past that point, youcan't really do as much with it
as it starts to thaw.
With all that being said, if itwas found out later on this
(21:46):
week or earlier this week, Ishould say it was found that
that study was incorrect.
John (21:56):
Oh wow, that's a big deal, man, especially with that being
a blossoming technology.
Denison (22:05):
One that could revolutionize how you do a lot
of things honestly.
John (22:11):
Yeah, yeah, that's crazy.
It's just one of those thingswhere truth is hard to find.
I'm not saying that's anythingnew, but there's just more
outlets, more content alwaysbeing fed your way.
I think it's just, I don't know.
(22:34):
This is how I approach thiskind of stuff.
Right, because this is anobvious problem.
Right, if you get one of thosealerts as hey, someone just blah
, blah, blah this and that,right, I feel like you got to
take it for your word.
But on certain things it's easyto question.
(22:56):
I take the Alzheimer's drug,for example.
Right, it makes sense, it'sbased off of other drugs and
they've had a lot of studieswith a lot of efficacy.
I think medication is differentbecause they have to go through
so many control groups andthere's a whole FDA, a lot of
oversight.
But with certain other things,an Apple a day may not actually
(23:22):
be the best thing for you, man.
If it works for you, it's likeI don't know, man.
Denison (23:29):
What's an Apple going to do to you?
John (23:30):
You know what I mean.
Denison (23:32):
Yeah, I get that.
John (23:35):
Anyway, I don't know, this is just my thoughts, man, do
you have any other thoughts youwant to add?
Denison (23:41):
You know, I think it just kind of feeds into
something that I think we'vecontinuously touched on over
this time is that not everythingthat you see article-wise or
scientific study-wise can alwaysbe instantly proven or not
(24:04):
proven, but instantly trusted.
Right, you always want to doyour own due diligence.
If you don't feel comfortablewith what you find or feel like
you're not able to get as far init as you would like, I always
try to tell people to maybe notsay that that's exactly what's
(24:30):
going on, right, then and there.
Sometimes it does reallyrequire that due diligence of
researching whatever that topicis and then comparing and
contrasting to what thesearticles are saying or what
these studies are saying, andthen you can kind of form your
own opinion Exactly.
John (24:49):
Yeah, I completely agree with that.
You know, it just also dependson the subject, but I think a
lot of those things, I reallythink that's worth your while,
you know, doing your ownresearch.
So yeah, great discussion.
I think we had a greatdiscussion on this late night
podcast.
(25:09):
Thank you guys for joining us,for the comments, for the
viewers, for listening andwatching with us.
We really appreciate it.
Thank you so much and we'llcatch up with you next week.
Here's what we're talking about.
We're talking about ascientific dishonesty, right?
So what's interesting aboutthis for me personally is I
watched Oppenheimer and then Iwatched it again, right, and two
times, two times.
Look at it.
(00:20):
Good to see you.
Thanks for jumping on the livestream with us.
Yeah, we think we got a goodtopic in store here.
So, yeah, second time I watchedit, I watched it with Fred and
I was thinking, you know, atleast I was portrayed in the
movies.
There wasn't anyone that wasoverseeing this group of
(00:46):
physicists, right?
That's a great movie.
I definitely highly endorse it.
So I would definitely recommendseeing it.
Denison (00:53):
If you can see it in one of the few IMAX theaters
that are in the country thathave the.
I forgot what the specificratio it is, but it's supposed
to be really, really, really,really like to see it in the
perfect deal.
It's supposed to be like anIMAX theater, like a specific
(01:15):
IMAX theater.
John (01:15):
So what did you think?
Did you get to see it that wayor no?
Oh, no, no, yeah me neither.
I did Still look great, right,I did see it in IMAX, but also
I'm going to deviate for asecond, because it reminds me of
Denison.
(01:36):
Did you see Mission Impossibleyet?
Denison (01:38):
I'm not.
John (01:39):
I think I saw it.
Denison (01:40):
It's impossible, man.
John (01:42):
Every movie suggesting I give Denison.
You know he does he's like ohyeah, yeah, definitely doesn't
see it.
Oh man.
Denison (01:52):
Hey, man, I'm busy.
I am busy, you know, yeah, butnot too busy.
John (01:58):
See Hoppingheimer, which was a three hour movie, anyway,
let's give you a hard time, but75 millimeter film is what
Catherine's saying.
So that's it.
But yes, really, what I'msaying with this is that no one
(02:19):
was there to give oversight,really, for Hoppingheimer, right
?
Of course that's understandable, right, there was no one
smarter on quantum research thanhim.
You know what I mean At thetime.
And so, yeah, I mean it'sinteresting, I was just thinking
about that.
(02:39):
There's no oversight for thesepeople who are dictating not
dictating, but just giving usexplanations for why things
happen, right?
So this is where today's topiccomes in, the Guardian, which I
will say has a history ofblowing things out of proportion
(03:00):
, although I will not say that'swhat they're doing on this one,
I don't know.
But you know, regardless ofthat, I still will take this for
Westworth.
But they have reports ofscientific misconduct, with
significant cases at Stanfordand Harvard.
(03:22):
Stanford's president resignedafter investigations highlighted
issues in his research, but hedidn't falsify any data.
So that's different.
A guy in Harvard BusinessSchool faced accusations of
false, fine research on get thishonesty right, which is
(03:46):
interesting, that's a veryinteresting.
Right, and so our discussiontonight doesn't have to be about
things on the quantum level,right?
A lot of these things are stuffthat you get in your news feed
(04:06):
on a daily basis, right?
Like?
A new study shows that applesare 80% more likely, if eaten
every day, to keep the doctoraway, but that research could
have been falsified.
Yeah, that's true.
This one was trying not tolaugh more on that, it was funny
(04:28):
, but yeah.
So I think it's important thatwe can trust in these scientific
institutions, and that's whatmakes this story so interesting.
So I say we go ahead and slapright into it.
What's going on?
Everybody, I'm John and I'mDenison, and this is the catch
(04:49):
up.
(05:11):
Before we get back into ourtopic tonight, I want to remind
you guys of three best ways tosupport this show.
Gotta wait for the props.
There's your three, there'sintro into three, but number one
, of course.
Okay, I was confused as to whatthat was at first.
(05:31):
Number one is leave us a ratingreview, let us know what you
think of each episode and theshow as a whole.
Every rating review helps usgrow wherever you're listening,
wherever you're watching andsubscribe if you like.
It says well, number two, or atoa.
(05:53):
That's actually three.
My bad, oh, a wash, that thingwas Chris.
All right, all right.
So number two is If you'relistening on the audio, thank
you, thank you, sure, we gotthat.
If you're listening on theaudio, you're gonna want to jump
on the Facebook or the YouTubewith us.
(06:13):
We go live every single weekand if you subscribe or give us
a follow, you can jump on andjoin the discussion with us in
real time.
It's something that we'vereally enjoyed doing and I'd
love to get your feedback as wediscussed.
And number three oh my gosh,the USB drive.
That's a.
It's a unique addition to thiscount.
(06:35):
Number three If you want tosupport us monetarily, because
it does cost to put this show on, we have really good, solid,
quality, clean merchandise atthe link below, wherever you're
listening, wherever you'rewatching, we got shirts, we got
hats, we got long sleeves,hoodies if you want to prepare
(06:57):
for the winter really early, andwe also have phone cases, mugs
and a little bit more.
Man.
There you go, there's all threeright there.
So, all right, let's.
Let's roll back into thisdiscussion, man.
So, as I said, those are justsome examples of, you know,
(07:20):
scientific negligence, I guess.
So a watchdog website calledretraction watch has reported on
numerous incident instances ofmisconduct and knowing that most
who don't occur at institutionslike Stanford or Harvard but
retraction sign as in, you knowyou have to retract your
(07:40):
statement and fix it.
Have searched from 40 in 2000to 5222.
That's a gigantic increase.
Denison (07:51):
Yeah, it's a very big jump.
John (07:54):
What are these people doing?
Playing Candy Crush Whilethey're splitting atoms?
Denison (07:59):
no, they're just making all the claims, man, all the
claim.
John (08:04):
Yeah, yeah, you know what I think it did.
I think it created a Pokemon inreal life.
Denison (08:10):
That's not true, actually my bad, it was a fever
dream right.
John (08:17):
So, according to this article that we're referencing,
that may actually be anunderestimation of the actual
amount of misconduct.
There could be more.
That's even, I would think.
Well, actually, I want to askyou which Catherine's calling
these alternative facts?
(08:38):
I want to wish oh, that's theScientific claims or alternative
facts?
I feel that.
So tell me, man, what do youthink is causing the spikes and
misinformation, the what'sdifferent about 2022 Versus 2000
(08:58):
?
Denison (08:58):
I Mean I think there's a lot you know, especially when
it comes to because it was 2000,the year 2000, I mean there's
been a lot that's happened andyou know to you know the two
decades, essentially Because Imean you have the age of social
(09:24):
media.
Information is far moreavailable to users than they
have then it has ever been,especially in the 2000s right,
it was just infant stages of theinternet, and then Also, I
think there's so much buzzaround different scientific
(09:47):
studies that people are justclamoring for at least my
opinion is that people are justclaiming for more and more
published studies to come out orwhatever like that, and for
more and more people just toread that cool headline.
Right, more news outletslooking for that really cool
headline.
(10:07):
Like you know, three in therecent studies stated that three
in five people may experience afright in their living room in
the next 10 days, or somethinglike that.
John (10:22):
Whoa a fright, but it's not a true story, by the way,
against your lucks, man.
Denison (10:32):
So you know, I think there's a lot of news outlets
that are just super gung-hoabout like jumping into that
process and I think the studiesare kind of following into that
same foot, into those samefootsteps, where they're
publishing more info out beforeit's like fully vetted and stuff
(10:54):
, because you know it's a lot ofrecanting their statements or
something similar to that.
John (10:59):
Yeah, no, I feel that, man .
Well, according to this,according to this study, two
main factors contribute to thisspike Volunteers who scrutinize
academic literature forinconsistencies, which I guess
was not happening back then in2000.
(11:22):
And the realization bypublishers that their models are
vulnerable to paper mills thatsell entire research materials.
So paper mills was in quotes,but yeah, those research
materials could go out.
So let's look at this in adifferent scope.
(11:46):
Right, like red wine bad foryou, red wine good for you, red
wine bad for you, right?
This could be a why they didn'thave as much oversight back
then as they do now.
So now there's more concern,kind of like what you were
saying, and more oversight nowtoo, which would lead to more
issues being found.
(12:07):
So it makes you wonder whathave we learned, or thought we
learned, from decades oldresearch?
I believe that those issueswould probably have come to
light, because usually those arepublic issues, public research
that can be studied and lookedover.
Well, I find that reallyinteresting.
(12:29):
Catherine says conjecture andopinion have been allowed to be
held at the same time at thesame level of scientific results
.
That can be repeated byscientific method.
That's true.
It depends on the theory, right?
Certain theories get morepublicity than others, like the
theory of relativity, right.
We basically take the theory ofgravity.
(12:50):
It's a theory, right, but Ithink we all experience it every
day, you know.
So, yeah, those type of things.
But then other things, yeah,you have to have proven and are
able to prove right.
You can't prove or disprovegravity with at least what they
(13:13):
had when the theory was firstdevised, if you will.
Denison (13:19):
Yeah, yeah, sorry, go ahead.
John (13:23):
But yeah, according to this, gravity is both a theory
and a law.
The law of gravity calculatesthe amount of attraction, while
the theory describes why objectsattract each other in the first
place.
That's really interesting.
It's both, you know.
Denison (13:42):
That is interesting.
It's just the different sidesin which you're looking at it.
One is, I guess the factoidportion of it is more like this
is exactly what we can observe,and then the rest of it is more
along the lines of based on whatwe have observed, this is our
(14:02):
opinion or thought process ofhow and why things do what they
do, or whatever like that whenit comes to gravity.
So that is a really cool way tothink about it, One that I
haven't really thought of, youknow.
John (14:19):
Sure, yeah, I find that all interesting.
So this is scientific fraud,which is what I was leaning into
on this.
Scientific fraud isn't just aprofessional issue.
It can endanger lives, as seenin the case of Joaquin Bolt.
(14:40):
His misleading results on ablood substitute had fatal
consequences.
A blood substitute, bro.
This dude was trying to be likeah, you need blood?
Don't have it, but try thispeanut butter instead.
Denison (14:59):
Yeah, you'll be good, you'll be right as rain.
John (15:02):
Yeah, right as rain.
So this is a Germananesthesiologist who
no-transcript he has 186retractions and is the highest.
He has the most retractions ofanyone.
Oh, wow, yeah.
(15:23):
So he studied a bloodsubstitute that was used in
hospitals across Europe.
His results, which werepublished around 1990 and 2009
and widely cited, suggested thatthe product used to help keep
blood pressure in the deliveryof oxygen to cells adequate with
saving lives.
(15:44):
After his fraud came to lightand researchers reanalyzed all
the available data, whileleaving Bull's results out, it
turned out the opposite was truethe substitute was associated
with a significant increasedrisk of mortality and acute
kidney injury.
Oh, wow, that's insane man.
Denison (16:07):
That is, that is you know, and this really kind of
talks more about the need forpeer review, right?
Because?
John (16:25):
Which is part of the scientific method, by the way,
it is.
Denison (16:28):
It is.
Everybody gets so gung-ho abouttheir results that they kind of
skip that portion.
But I think it's so importantthat the peer review stage of
these studies gets properlypursued, because you get moments
(16:48):
where you're having to retractyour statement because after
peer review they've seen theflaws in their experiment or the
flaws in how they wereresearching things or if there
was bias or anything like that.
It shows up there, usuallyright, and kind of like Pardon
(17:13):
me Kind of like the fact thatmore people are able to access
these studies than they werebefore.
there is a higher percentage ofplenty of researchers being able
to jump in from across theworld to be able to jump in on
these studies and look at themand scrutinize them and review
(17:35):
them and say like, ah no, thisisn't working.
John (17:38):
You know they do it in a quicker amount of time too,
correct, correct.
Yeah, there's a scene inOppenheimer where he waits.
Well, he has to go to Princetonto talk to Albert Einstein to
(18:00):
ask him what he thinks about hisfindings, and it results to
nuclear fusion, right, orfission Dang it, I always do
that, but no worries.
But yeah, that's what makes itdifferent.
That's also what makes itsurprising to me that they are
so much higher.
It should be easier than everto oversee this kind of stuff.
(18:23):
Yeah.
Denison (18:24):
Yeah, you would think.
But I mean, there's tons ofpeople who are doing research,
right?
John (18:32):
That's true.
It could just be a flat line,because they're all able to be
more busy with their studies,you know.
Denison (18:39):
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
We live in an age where it's somuch easier because of
technology to bring more peoplein to do different types of
studies and stuff like that.
Think about it If you need toresearch something that, at
least for the most part, youjust needed people's verbal
communication, you can easily dothat just via Teams or Zoom.
(19:04):
Never before was really an easyway to do it.
I mean sure you can get on thephone and call someone, but it's
not going to be the same asdoing a Zoom call or a Teams
call.
You have that face-to-faceinteraction going.
John (19:22):
Definitely yeah, and to the point you're making too.
This is interesting to me.
Publishers and journals havebeen criticized for slow
responses, with some retractionsdelayed for years.
Universities often investigateallegations internally, which
(19:44):
might not ensure unbiasedresults.
Of course I get that, but yeah,it seems like there's a
reluctancy, maybe even among thescientific community, of not
wanting to rat people out forbeing wrong or just being too
(20:07):
self-focused on their own works.
I don't know.
Yeah, it's interesting man.
Denison (20:16):
Yeah, it is.
I know we were talking aboutthis a little bit earlier, but
it's kind of like the greatexample of this I feel like is
there's a.
There was an article that cameout about a week ago or so about
(20:37):
a team of researchers that hadfound a material that is able to
be a superconductor at roomtemperature.
Why this is so significant isbecause superconductors for them
to be able to do their reallyreally cool properties of
(20:58):
levitation and some other insuperposition or whatever like
that there's a couple otherthings that they can do, but
essentially the only way forthat to happen is for them to be
incredibly cooled to a highamount, right To a huge degree.
That takes a lot of energy anda lot of time and a lot of
(21:24):
effort to get it cooled downlike that.
Then, even past that point, youcan't really do as much with it
as it starts to thaw.
With all that being said, if itwas found out later on this
(21:46):
week or earlier this week, Ishould say it was found that
that study was incorrect.
John (21:56):
Oh wow, that's a big deal, man, especially with that being
a blossoming technology.
Denison (22:05):
One that could revolutionize how you do a lot
of things honestly.
John (22:11):
Yeah, yeah, that's crazy.
It's just one of those thingswhere truth is hard to find.
I'm not saying that's anythingnew, but there's just more
outlets, more content alwaysbeing fed your way.
I think it's just, I don't know.
(22:34):
This is how I approach thiskind of stuff.
Right, because this is anobvious problem.
Right, if you get one of thosealerts as hey, someone just blah
, blah, blah this and that,right, I feel like you got to
take it for your word.
But on certain things it's easyto question.
(22:56):
I take the Alzheimer's drug,for example.
Right, it makes sense, it'sbased off of other drugs and
they've had a lot of studieswith a lot of efficacy.
I think medication is differentbecause they have to go through
so many control groups andthere's a whole FDA, a lot of
oversight.
But with certain other things,an Apple a day may not actually
(23:22):
be the best thing for you, man.
If it works for you, it's likeI don't know, man.
Denison (23:29):
What's an Apple going to do to you?
John (23:30):
You know what I mean.
Denison (23:32):
Yeah, I get that.
John (23:35):
Anyway, I don't know, this is just my thoughts, man, do
you have any other thoughts youwant to add?
Denison (23:41):
You know, I think it just kind of feeds into
something that I think we'vecontinuously touched on over
this time is that not everythingthat you see article-wise or
scientific study-wise can alwaysbe instantly proven or not
(24:04):
proven, but instantly trusted.
Right, you always want to doyour own due diligence.
If you don't feel comfortablewith what you find or feel like
you're not able to get as far init as you would like, I always
try to tell people to maybe notsay that that's exactly what's
(24:30):
going on, right, then and there.
Sometimes it does reallyrequire that due diligence of
researching whatever that topicis and then comparing and
contrasting to what thesearticles are saying or what
these studies are saying, andthen you can kind of form your
own opinion Exactly.
John (24:49):
Yeah, I completely agree with that.
You know, it just also dependson the subject, but I think a
lot of those things, I reallythink that's worth your while,
you know, doing your ownresearch.
So yeah, great discussion.
I think we had a greatdiscussion on this late night
podcast.
(25:09):
Thank you guys for joining us,for the comments, for the
viewers, for listening andwatching with us.
We really appreciate it.
Thank you so much and we'llcatch up with you next week.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.