My first job out of college 10 years ago was in a lab focused on Alzheimer’s research. Our Principle Investigator made an art of writing grant applications for studies that would appear to be in line with mainstream theory, but were really intended to test theories he actually thought were worth testing, presented in results as an “interesting” aside. He believed the amyloid theory had been conclusively disproven.
He explained to me that people like him work for decades, quasi-retire into positions accepting grant applications, and have a conscious or unconscious agenda to preserve or validate their life’s work. His money quote was “science is like the Catholic Church, a lot of nice sentiments but full of people”.
I don’t have any evidence or examples, but I suspect this dynamic is not limited to Alzheimer’s research.
Another anchor to research not mentioned in the article is how much sponsoring universities take from research labs. To put a university endorsement on our research, which is needed to be credible, the university took half (half!) our grant money.