And when companies fund science, they control it.
So who should do it then?
So who should do it then?
What is missing is, that the scientific process does not adhere to any ideal, in the long term. Think tobacco or sugar. Even the author almost mentions it but then decides for memes instead. So pathetic.
EDIT: And there is of course the part where unpromising ROI research is completely ditched and vanishes from the academic landscape, like pedagogic research. Or very risky foundational research where scientists barely scratch together funds, only to get bought up by hawking large corporations once the risks clears.
Firstly we need to consider whether the science establishment is fit for purpose. Is it ok for government/corporations/military to be the sole funders of science? Should we trust the provided results when they can be so easily gamed?
To me its clear that there are conflicts of interests. Science is held up as a triumph of humanity - a far better basis than religion on which to base society - but it is also clear that it is beholden to corporate interests.
If you want to re-gain some faith in science, there are things you could consider. I'm not saying these are solutions - just thoughts:
You could make scientific studies open - all of them. So, no need to publish in a journal. If a study provides results that are 'bad' they should still be made available! There should also be space to study things that do not have a corporate, governance or military interest - we get very few studies of health impacts of natural easily available foods, because there is no valid commercial interest. (We do get PR studies from the wine and chocolate companies - I'm not talking about those.)
I'm sure there are other ideas too. But, as a start we have to recognise that the scientific establishment works for those who fund it - its about governance and finance.
In truth, I don't expect things to change, I expect this to get worse. But no, I have no confidence in "science" as the last word.