What's New in Science

Click here to see what's new in science.

You won't necessarily find it by looking for journals with high impact factors.

Be sure you are reading good science. The Washington Post motto printed beneath their running banner every day reads "Democracy Dies in Darkness." The same principle holds true in science, where "Development Dies in Darkness." Anonymous peer review lacks traceability and accountability critical to progress, and is by nature not cGxP. In the Internet era, scientists should publish in open-access journals that offer open post-publication peer review.

Watch what John Stossel has to say about academic journals. If these were open access and cGxP, at least other scientists would be able to post their reviews (and warnings) about ridiculous submissions.

We don't get good results from academia in the US because we do not measure or reward good results. In pharmaceutical sciences, if you are looking for a performance metric that is truly competitive, you should count INDs. It is hard to get an IND at FDA.

Don’t think INDs are competitive? How many faculty members actually have an IND? And INDs are The Gateway to Translating Drugs from bench to bedside, something that we claim we want to do (but overall fail miserably at doing). Instead, we want to count whatever we can get, like NIH grants awarded by faculty members just like us, in which putative biomedical scientists eat up billions of dollars of pork and deliver no new drug therapies. Maybe patients should staff those review panels instead? We need to face the fact as a country that this system is a fraud against the American public and a massive waste of tax dollars.

MAY 25, 2021 • CATO DAILY PODCAST

Don’t Be like China: Why the U.S. Government Should Cut Its Science Budget

Featuring Terence Kealey and Caleb O. Brown