Pierre-Alain Bruchez –Off-Guardian Sept 6, 2025

The crisis in science that undermines research is widely underestimated, largely because irreproducible results, ideological bias, conflicts of interest, and fraud are typically discussed in isolation—without recognizing their cumulative impact and shared roots.

Scientists alone cannot resolve this. Citizen scrutiny is essential. But first, citizens should be informed.

Scientific fraud has become industrialized

Fraud is, by nature, elusive. Although improved detection tools (e.g. image duplication analysis) may struggle to catch current fraud, given how quickly fraudsters adapt, they nonetheless provide valuable insights into past misconduct.

Particularly troubling is the fact that fraud is no longer confined to isolated individuals, but is increasingly perpetrated by organized networks (see Richardson et al., The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly). The presence of fraudsters should not discredit an entire profession, but it remains the duty of each profession to expose and expel them.

The Replication Crisis

Many published results cannot be reproduced: this is the replication crisis. This is not necessarily due to fraud. In many fields, results are statistical: they can also be due to chance. For example, if you want to know whether a die is rigged, you roll it many times. If one face appears disproportionately often, you conclude it is biased.

However, it is not impossible that the die is fair and the result merely random. Typically, a result is accepted if the probability that it occurred by chance is less than an arbitrarily chosen threshold of 5% (although in some fields, such as particle physics, the threshold is set much lower).

Thus, in principle, one would expect 5% of statistical results to be false. In reality, it is much higher, especially due to publication bias. Spectacular results are more likely to be published, although they are also more likely to be statistical flukes.

As early as 2005, John Ioannidis demonstrated in his landmark paper Why Most Published Research Findings Are False that the proportion of false statistical results is far greater than 5%. A large-scale replication project in psychology confirmed that only a minority of results could be replicated. Oncology and biomedical research also show high replication failure rates. Surprisingly, no meta-study compares replication failure rates across disciplines. Why not launch a massive replication project across all fields?

The replication crisis has been recognized for years and is still not overcome. Yet, in principle, it could be drastically reduced quickly. Solutions exist. Journals must demand transparency: full data and methodology disclosure to enable replication. Methods and hypotheses should be preregistered to prevent post hoc hypothesis fishing. Articles should be accepted based on the relevance of the question and methodological rigor, not the results.

This reduces the incentive and ability to chase statistically spurious findings. The Center for Open Science offers tools to support this, but they are used in only a minority of publications.

Universities should replicate more studies, starting with the most important ones (to test the foundations of the discipline) and randomly among newly published results (to encourage researchers to be more rigorous by increasing the risk that their study will be checked). Students would gain valuable experience while providing a highly useful service. Replication is a powerful pedagogical tool.

Initiatives like those from the Center for Open Science promote replication but still operate on a modest scale compared to global research output. Replication status should be readily available when consulting a study, and journalists should systematically report it. Safeguards must also be implemented to prevent collusive validation fraud, where researchers complacently reproduce each other’s findings. All of this should be put into effect swiftly.

It is encouraging to see the growing number of initiatives aimed at tackling the replication crisis. Beyond the Center for Open Science mentioned earlier, notable examples include the Institute for Replication, Open Science NL, and the NIH’s Replication Initiative. Yet the impact of these initiatives remains modest compared to the magnitude of the replication crisis itself.

The scientific community’s lack of urgency in addressing the replication crisis is even more troubling than the crisis itself. Inertia? The deeper issue is that for too many scientists, truth-seeking is no longer the main priority. This is vividly illustrated by their increasing submission to authoritarian ideologies.

Ideological capture in universities reveals a deprioritization of truth-seeking, which also hinders efforts to overcome the replication crisis. Conversely, ideological capture has taken hold on already weakened ground—as illustrated by the replication crisis itself.

Ideological Capture

Major universities, especially in the U.S., have been captured by authoritarian ideologies. Willingly or not, researchers have often repeated claims they know are false. To expose this ideological grip, Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay, and Helen Pluckrose managed to publish deliberately absurd but politically correct papers (they present their work in a video). Boghossian had to resign from his university and co-founded the University of Austin, which positions itself as one of the few alternatives to universities captured by wokeism.

Another alternative is the Peterson Academy, created by Jordan Peterson. He famously refused to use compelled speech under a Canadian law, received threatening letters from his University of Toronto, and eventually resigned. Bret Weinstein, who opposed a day of absence during which whites were asked not to enter the university campus, was also forced to resign, along with his wife. Wokeism is increasingly spreading to European universities as well.

For instance, Professor Kathleen Stock resigned from her position at the University of Sussex in October 2021, after being subjected to intense harassment due to her views on biological sex and gender identity. These are just a few examples illustrating the power that wokeism has gained within universities.

Harassment of individuals deemed politically incorrect often arises from joint lobbying efforts involving certain students, administrative staff, and scientists. Not only can wokeism lead to the resignation of researchers or force the hiring of incompetent researchers (selected on criteria other than merit), but it can also impose or prohibit research or teaching topics, or bias the manner in which these topics are studied (for example, by banning the investigation of certain potential causes of a given phenomenon). Under these conditions, it is not surprising that many scientists prefer to assign the pursuit of truth only a secondary priority.

Within the scientific community, resistance is emerging. A chorus of academic voices rises, for example, in The War on Science, edited by Lawrence Krauss (see also an interview with Krauss presenting the book: Lawrence Krauss: The new war on science | UnHerd and conversations between Krauss and contributors to the book on the following site: The Origins Podcast). It remains unclear whether the most captured universities can be restored or must be replaced by new, healthier institutions.

A correction to the ideological grip on U.S. universities is long overdue. But the current Trump administration’s approach is crude and indiscriminate. It is not a restoration of balance, but the rise of right-wing authoritarianism, mirroring the abuses of wokeism. Two authoritarianisms reinforcing each other. Science in the U.S. is caught between them.

Ideological capture is most acute in North America, yet it is spreading elsewhere, notably in Europe (see, for example, France: Face à l’obscurantisme woke). Moreover, given the global nature of science, biased findings published by American universities within a given discipline end up contaminating that discipline worldwide— especially since many of the most prestigious institutions are located in North America and are ideologically captured (according to the 2025 U.S. College Free Speech Rankings by FIRE, Harvard University is this year’s bottom ranked school for free speech for the second year in a row).

Conflicts of Interest

Some researchers prioritize personal gain over truth in particularly egregious ways. For instance, 27 scientists published a letter in The Lancet labeling as “conspiracists” those who suggested COVID-19 might have leaked from a lab, thus censoring debate during the early pandemic phase.

At the time, several authors failed to disclose conflicts of interest, most notably Peter Daszak, who had worked with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (and was later chosen by the WHO as the sole American voice on its team for investigating the origin of the COVID-19).

I, and presumably most citizens, were unaware before the pandemic that artificially enhancing viruses through gain-of-function research was even taking place. This raises a troubling question: are there other procedures currently underway that pose serious risks, yet remain hidden from public scrutiny? What is the role of science journalism if it fails to inform the public about such dangers?

Why does it matter where COVID-19 came from (see Bret Weinstein: Why COVID-19 May Have Leaked from a Lab | Joe Rogan Experience and Where Did COVID-19 REALLY Come From? With Matt Ridley | TRIGGERnometry)?

First, knowing the origin of COVID-19 could have provided crucial insight into the virus’s properties at a time when it was still poorly understood, potentially guiding early prevention strategies more effectively.

Second, if COVID-19 originated from a lab, understanding the specifics of the accident could help us design safeguards more effectively. Third, ignoring the pandemic’s origin risks emboldening malicious actors: if nature is always blamed, then deliberate releases may go unnoticed and unpunished. Fourth, we owe it to the victims to find out what happened.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, censorship and demonization of those who questioned official narratives extended not only to the virus’s origin but also to the effectiveness and side effects of the measures taken, whether related to lockdowns, mask-wearing, vaccination, medication, and so forth.

The COVID-19 pandemic is far from the only instance in which conflicts of interest come into play. These conflicts often stem from private funding. Funders may influence researchers or simply select those most likely to produce desired outcomes. Facts typically do not speak for themselves. One study gave identical data to different researchers to test two hypotheses: their conclusions varied widely. Thus, choosing the right analyst can suffice to obtain the desired result.

Researchers can often make data say what they want, driven by ideological, financial or career motives.

A Broken Science Needs All of Us: Researchers, Journalists, and Citizens

The crisis in science has many facets, but one root cause: truth has often been relegated to the back seat. Many scientists continue to work rigorously and uphold the highest standards, but more and more scientists prioritize other goals over truth-seeking. Those are no longer true scientists.

Like other humans, researchers respond to incentives. They know that their careers depend on the quantity of articles they publish and how often they are cited, rather than on their true value. They play the game. When they review an article in a peer review process, they know they cannot truly assess the validity of its conclusions, unless there are obvious flaws.

They often lack the information needed to replicate the study, and in any case, they have more rewarding things to do. They play the game. They focus on publishing articles and disengage from the functioning of their university.

When an authoritarian ideology takes advantage of this to capture the institution, researchers submit to its demands. They play the game, just as they did when they tailored their research to secure funding. There are exceptions, but the majority of researchers play a game that no longer tends toward truth.

Yet we urgently need science to tackle major challenges, such as climate, energy and health. But science can only fulfill this role if it is restored. Truth-seeking must once again be its core value. The scientific method and freedom of speech should be restored.

Science still enjoys prestige thanks to past achievements. Our technological power proves we have understood something about how the world works. But these past achievements say nothing about the present state of science, nor about disciplines that do not lead to technology.

How to restore science? Despite promising initiatives, the scientific community has not overcome the crisis. This suggests a lack of capacity or collective will. The replication crisis persists despite available solutions. Worse, many scientists in elite U.S. universities align themselves with authoritarian ideologies.

Scientists will not save science unless citizens, who fund much of their research and may decide not to be misled by unscientific studies anymore, compel them to act. This crisis should not be allowed to continue.

Citizens must be informed. They will eventually be. But the sooner the better, so the damage can be repaired quickly.

Unfortunately, journalists often downplay the crisis to protect science’s reputation. In trying to shield it, they delay its restoration and discredit themselves. When the collapse can no longer be hidden, citizens will ask: “Why did you hide the elephant in the room for so long?” (for example, according to a study, 75% of Germans have never heard of the replication crisis). And they will not trust them anymore.

Journalists must speak out now, so help arrives early and science communicators are not swept away in a wave of discredit.

It would be useful to apply game theory to both the replication crisis and the ideological capture of universities. At first glance, it should be possible to change the rules of the game so that incentives align in a way that counters the replication crisis.

Countering the ideological capture of universities, however, appears to hinge more on raw power dynamics. It is important to identify the right leverage points. One such point may be breaking the cycle of virtue signaling by demonstrating that wokeism is not a virtue, but a performative distortion of it.

Speaking out can shatter the wall of silence and embolden others to do the same. The creation of new, healthy institutions can also trigger a snowball effect.

Avoiding Nihilism

The depth of the crisis can be dizzying, risking nihilism. Yet we have a compass: the scientific method works to approach truth. The problem is that “scientists” too often abandon it. We know what must be done. And we can trust disciplines and institutions that rigorously follow the scientific method.

Journalists must help, by not merely reporting results, but by also communicating the degree of scientific rigor behind them. To this end, we should attempt to develop an index measuring scientific rigor by discipline and university worldwide. However, we must ensure that the development of this index is not itself captured. This differentiated approach is essential, not only to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but to incentivize disciplines and universities to return to scientific rigor.

Sadly, the least rigorous fields often deal with human issues where bias is both more tempting and more feasible. Tempting, because it influences policy. Feasible, because complexity allows more room to manipulate.

Until science is restored, can we still trust science in disciplines and institutions with low scientific rigor? One answer might be that low scientific rigor is still better than no scientific rigor at all. But this scientific rigor has sometimes fallen so low that it is mostly misleading, and it would be preferable for these disciplines and universities to no longer cloak themselves in the virtues of science.

Basic skepticism, which demands evidence and wants to understand how we know what we know, is fundamentally healthy and even central to the scientific approach. During the science crisis we are experiencing, citizens must be particularly vigilant. Their trust can only be conditional and granular. Conditional on the arguments provided and the evidence of adherence to the scientific method. Granular: trust should vary by discipline and institution. It is not about uniformly trusting or distrusting everything that claims to be science, but about granting trust based on the scientific rigor of the discipline and the university presenting the results. And it is not forbidden to use common sense.

When those who betray the scientific method see they no longer sway public opinion, they will be pressured to reform.

Complacency is poisoning the science we so crucially need. Citizens, journalists, and scientists alike must act now to restore the very soul of science: the uncompromising search for truth

Pierre-Alain Bruchez holds a PhD in economics and previously worked at the Swiss Federal Finance Administration. In 2023, he initiated a referendum as an ordinary citizen. He writes on democracy, science, and nature. His latest book (in French) is ÉCOLOGIE VITALE –– Protéger la nature hors de nous pour la ranimer en nous.

My Source