Published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the report illustrates how scientific research is susceptible to bias when it is funded by the government and how a considerable number of scientific studies cannot be replicated or reproduced. As a result, government policy based on the research isn’t based on scientific methods and cannot be accepted as fact.
“Medical research, psychology, and economics are all in the grip of a ‘reproducibility crisis.’ A pharmaceutical company attempting to confirm the findings of 53 landmark cancer studies was successful in only six instances, a failure rate of 89%. ” Donna Laframboise, a journalist who authored the report, said in a statement. “Government policies can’t be considered evidence-based if the evidence on which they depend hasn’t been independently verified, yet the vast majority of academic research is never put to this test.”
Laframboise and the GWPF suspect that environmental and climate science are also in the grips of a similar crisis of reproducibility — much of climate modelling is done via supercomputers and therefore cannot be easily checked by peer reviewers or the general public.
“Reproducibility is the backbone of sound science,” Laframboise continued.”If it is infeasible to independently
evaluate the numerous assumptions embedded within climate model software, and if third parties lack comparable computing power, a great deal of climate science would appear to be inherently non-reproducible.”
Laframboise isn’t the only one to see a big problem developing in science.
“Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue,” Richard Horton, editor of the peer-reviewed medical journal The Lancet, wrote in a study published last April. “Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”