269KiB, 400x509, D9F93A60-C063-438E-A792-56A61E91B65D-692-0000026A640A1E83.png
For example I've noticed the literature on pharmaceuticals is often colored by various stigmas and orthodoxy.
Is that wrong and is pharmaceutical science just as perfect as other sciences or are other sciences vulnerable to the same institutional problems, for example science about racial topics or climate science or whatnot?
Another example is Eric Weinstein in his podcast talking about how the coverup in the scientific community and lack of journal articles about animal models being fucked up with mutant rats in the pharma industry and a wrongly awarded nobel prize:
https://youtu.be/JLb5hZLw44s
Is consensus mostly a myth at this point? Is peer review being used to gatekeeper grant money and act as a cartel to the big journals like nature?
Can a country's political policies affect the reported consensus in one these controversial fields?
Is that wrong and is pharmaceutical science just as perfect as other sciences or are other sciences vulnerable to the same institutional problems, for example science about racial topics or climate science or whatnot?
Another example is Eric Weinstein in his podcast talking about how the coverup in the scientific community and lack of journal articles about animal models being fucked up with mutant rats in the pharma industry and a wrongly awarded nobel prize:
https://youtu.be/JLb5hZLw44s
Is consensus mostly a myth at this point? Is peer review being used to gatekeeper grant money and act as a cartel to the big journals like nature?
Can a country's political policies affect the reported consensus in one these controversial fields?
