Scientists were perceived as more credible than government officials, but were not more credible than businesspeople or issue advocates.Scientists were viewed as more credible when discussing technological issues than when discussing non-technological social issues such as health, education and employment.Three forms of distrust – concerns abo...
Unless they’re paid off by big corporations to do studies favorable to a company’s products, in which case they bring nice sounding lies. Like how Monsanto wrote entire passages of the paper supposedly proving the safety of their glyphosate.
This shit killed my grandma in her late 60s along with millions of others worldwide.
But I think this is due to a broader incentive problem in science. There’s incentive to find new and interesting things to publish or die. There’s no incentive (in fact strong incentives against) replicating other studies to see if their results hold up to external verification.
Unless they’re paid off by big corporations to do studies favorable to a company’s products, in which case they bring nice sounding lies. Like how Monsanto wrote entire passages of the paper supposedly proving the safety of their glyphosate.
Source
This shit killed my grandma in her late 60s along with millions of others worldwide.
But I think this is due to a broader incentive problem in science. There’s incentive to find new and interesting things to publish or die. There’s no incentive (in fact strong incentives against) replicating other studies to see if their results hold up to external verification.
Absolutely. All the Parkinsons cases from people who’ve lived next to agricultural land and golf courses, all from ‘safe’ products.