That’s what I thought, sadly.

I can tell you that i life science, researchers do not co-operate together and largely work in silos. In fact they are so obsessed with getting scooped that they go to great length to no co-operate. A big part of this is that academic researchers are judged solely on their publication record and most covet being published in one of the major journals (usually science, cell, nature) – This leads to the ‘publish or perish’ model which most academic subscribe to. This is really obvious at scientific meetings where usually the results shown are from published work that sometimes go back 2 or 3 years!! So there are big problems in the way science is conducted and will require structural changes from the funding agencies and the universities before researchers become truly collaborative.

doubling the PhD enrolment rate would be a disaster unless there are really jobs available out there for these PhDs. The biggest issue for PhD graduates at least in life science is the increasingly difficult task of finding a job in academic or industry. I know plenty of highly qualified PhDs who have completed successful Post docs for 4 to 5 years and still struggle to find good jobs or any jobs. Another point is that PhD graduates are also spending long time doing a post-doc which is now averaging around 6-7 years before they even have a shot at a job. It is important to note that post-doc positions usually offer low salaries and no benefits which becomes increasingly problematic as these individuals enter their late 30s or early 40s!Again, I am describing the reality for the life science sector as this is the one that I am familiar with.

people can reproduce cures for cancer, and the connection between animal protein consumption and cancer, and the connection between the consumption of environmental toxins and neurodegenerative diseases. plenty of folks will dismiss it though, as we see in this thread.meanwhile stuff that can never be reproduced, the collapse of building 7 on 9/11, are taken as scientific fact and while honest, diligent, good-looking researchers like myself are attacked for making this observation.

There is/was/will never be a dispute in science …as long as you can prove something (what ever crap it may be…even facebook monetization …) which is”repeatable reproducible irrespective of the person-performing-it.”

Chemo while not perfect saved my life. Anvanced Testicular Cancer is one of the cancers that truly legitimizes this aporoach.

science is widely disputed. some scientists say evolution is how humanity was created, other scientists point to the existence of a unified source field form which all life springs. some scientists say eating meat is good for you, other scientists say it is bad for you. all a matter of faith. unlike religion though they don’t want to admit it and would rather pretend that htey know everything.