Perspective on scientific truth versus scientific evidence; maintaining integrity in global food systems
Peer Ederer
A *
A
Abstract
Sciences related to animal agriculture are threatened by agenda-driven scientists. It can be shown that too many peer-reviewed articles have dubious quality, including high-profile ones. Better training and higher review standards for rigour, reproducibility and transparency should help alleviate the problem. However, they will not solve the challenge posed by ‘cargo cult scientists’, as characterised by Richard Feynman. Such agenda-driven scientists pursue an a priori mission, whose achievement justifies any means, even if it includes to willfully manipulate and interpretate data, or to violate good practices of integrity in the sciences. This review explores in three prominent case studies in animal-sourced food related sciences where the dividing line might be between science being poorly practiced (which can be remedied), and scientific channels being abused for agendas (which should not be tolerated). So as to guard both as the individual scientist and as the discipline against the intrusion of such agenda-driven science, this article suggests adopting the Popperian stance to generally refrain from the concept of seeking or establishing a ‘scientific truth’, and instead to restrict oneself to presenting the ‘scientific evidence’, both in terms of what the evidence shows, and what it does not.
Keywords: animal agriculture, cargo cult scientist, conflict of interest, food systems, integrity, reproducibility and transparency, rigour, scientific evidence, scientific truth, white-hat bias.
References
Allison DB, Brown AW, George BJ, et al. (2016) Reproducibility: a tragedy of errors. Nature 530, 27-29.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Anderson MS, Ronning EA, De Vries R, et al. (2007) The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics 13, 437-461.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Bero LA, Grundy Q (2018) Not all influences on science are conflicts of interest. American Journal of Public Health 108(5), 632-633.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Besnier J-M (2013) D‘un désir mortifère d‘immortalité. À propos du transhumanisme. Cités 55(3), 13-23 [In English]. Available at https://www.cairn.info/revue-cites-2013-3-page-13.htm.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Blaxter KL, Webster AJF (1991) Animal production and food: real problems and paranoia. Animal Production 53, 261-269.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Boobis AR, Cohen SM, Dellarco VL, Doe JE, Fenner-Crisp PA, Moretto A, Pastoor TP, Schoeny RS, Seed JG, Wolf DC (2016) Classification schemes for carcinogenicity based on hazard-identification have become outmoded and serve neither science nor society. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 82, 158-166.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Bouvard V, Loomis D, Guyton KZ, Grosse Y, Ghissassi FE, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, Guha N, Mattock H, Straif K, International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group (2015) Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. The Lancet Oncology 16, 1599-1600.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Brainard J, Jia Y (2018) What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s ‘death penalty’. Available at https://www.science.org/content/article/what-massive-database-retracted-papers-reveals-about-science-publishing-s-death-penalty [retrieved 24 April 2023]
Brooks (2021) Hegel’s Social and Political Philosophy. Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-social-political/
Brüssow H (2022) What is truth – in science and beyond. Environmental Microbiology 24, 2895-2906.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Cremieux R (2023) Ranking Fields by p-Value Suspiciousness. Analysis published on substack. Available at https://cremieux.substack.com/p/ranking-fields-by-p-value-suspiciousness [retrieved 24 April 2023]
Cope MB, Allison DB (2010) White hat bias: examples of its presence in obesity research and a call for renewed commitment to faithfulness in research reporting. International Journal of Obesity 34, 84-88.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Dublin Declaration (2023) Dublin Declaration of Scientists on the Societal Role of Livestock. Animal Frontiers 13(2), 10.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
EAT (2020) EAT at the UN Food Systems Summit 2021. Available at https://eatforum.org/learn-and-discover/eat-at-the-un-food-systems-summit-2021/ [retrieved on 24 April 2023]
EAT (2023) What is EAT. Available at https://eatforum.org/about/who-we-are/what-is-eat/[retrieved 24 April 2023]
Ederer P, Leroy F (2023) The societal role of meat: what the science says. Animal Frontiers 13(2), 3-8.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
EU2020.de (2020) Bonn Declaration on Freedom of Scientific Research. Available at https://www.bmbf.de/bmbf/shareddocs/downloads/files/_drp-efr-bonner_erklaerung_en_with-signatures_maerz_2021.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1
Feynman RP (1974) Cargo Cult Science. Available at https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm
Fisch F (2018) Conflicts of interest: transparency is not enough, in Horizon, the Swiss Research Magazine. Available at https://www.horizons-mag.ch/2018/12/06/conflicts-of-interest-transparency-isnt-enough/
Flyvbjerg B (2006) Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry 12(2), 219-245.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
GBD 2019 (2020) Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet 396(10258), 1204-1222.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Gordon-Dseagu VLZ, Wiseman MJ, Allen K, et al. (2022) Troubling assumptions behind GBD 2019 on the health risks of red meat. The Lancet 400(10350), 427-428.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Horton R (2015) Offline: what is medicine’s 5 sigma? The Lancet 385(9976), 1380.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Hoppe R (1999) Policy analysis, science and politics: from ‘speaking truth to power’ to ‘making sense together’. Science and Public Policy 26(3), 201-210.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
IAEA (2023) International Symposium on ‘Dietary Protein for Human Health’ (organized in cooperation with the IAEA). Available at https://www.iaea.org/events/evt2100453
IARC (2018) Red Meat and Processed Meat, Vol. 114. Available at https://publications.iarc.fr/Book-And-Report-Series/Iarc-Monographs-On-The-Identification-Of-Carcinogenic-Hazards-To-Humans/Red-Meat-And-Processed-Meat-2018
Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine 2(8), e124.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Ioannidis JPA (2016) The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The Milbank Quarterly 94(3), 485-514.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
John LK, Loewenstein G, Marder A, Callaham ML (2019) Effect of revealing authors’ conflicts of interests in peer review: randomized controlled trial. The BMJ 367, l5896.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Johnston BC, Zeraatkar D, Han MA, Vernooij RWM, Valli C, El Dib R, et al. (2019) Unprocessed red meat and processed meat consumption: dietary guideline recommendations from the Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) consortium. Annals of Internal Medicine 171, 756-764.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Johnston B, De Smet S, Leroy F, Mente A, Stanton A (2023) Non-communicable disease risk associated with red and processed meat consumption-magnitude, certainty, and contextuality of risk? Animal Frontiers 13(2), 19-27.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Klurfeld DM (2018) What is the role of meat in a healthy diet? Animal Frontiers 8(3), 5-10.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Kruger C, Zhou Y (2018) Red meat and colon cancer: a review of mechanistic evidence for heme in the context of risk assessment methodology. Food and Chemical Toxicology 118, 131-153.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Leroy F, Ederer P (2023) The Dublin Declaration of Scientists on the Societal Role of Livestock. Nature Food 4, 438-439.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Lescinsky H, Afshin A, Ashbaugh C, et al. (2022) Health effects associated with consumption of unprocessed red meat: a Burden of Proof study. Nature Medicine 28, 2075-2082.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Luneau G (2020) Steak Barbare – Hold-up vegan sur l’assiette, published by De L Aube. Available at https://editionsdelaube.fr/catalogue_de_livres/steak-barbare/
Massimi M (2019) Getting it right: Truth is neither absolute nor timeless. But the pursuit of truth remains at the heart of the scientific endeavour. Aeon. Available at https://aeon.co/essays/its-time-for-a-robust-philosophical-defence-of-truth-in-science
McNutt M (2014) Reproducibility. Science 343, 229.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Murray CJL (2022) 36-fold higher estimate of deaths attributable to red meat intake in GBD 2019: is this reliable? Author’s reply. The Lancet 399(10332), e27-e28.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2019) ‘Reproducibility and Replicability in Science.’ (The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA) doi:10.17226/25303
NIH (2023) Guidance: rigor and reproducibility in grant applications. Available at https://grants.nih.gov/policy/reproducibility/guidance.htm [retrieved 24 April 2023]
OECD (2017) Governing better through evidence-informed policy making, Conference Summary. Available at https://www.oecd.org/gov/governing-better-through-evidence-informed-policy-making-proceedings.pdf
Oransky I (2022) Retractions are increasing, but not enough. Nature 608, 9.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Pethick DW, Bryden WL, Mann NJ, Masters DG, Lean IJ (2023) The societal role of meat: the Dublin Declaration with an Australian perspective. Animal Production Science 63(18), 1805-1826.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Plato (2018) Reproducibility of Scientific Results. Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-reproducibility/
Sackett DL (1979) Bias in Analytic Research. Journal of Chronic Disease 32, 51-63 Available at https://www.jameslindlibrary.org/wp-data/uploads/2014/06/Sackett-1979-whole-article.pdf.
| Google Scholar |
Silva RS (2014) O papel dos valores nas ciências Sociais e Humanas. Kairos 11, 59-90 Available at https://repositorio.ul.pt/bitstream/10451/60137/1/Kairos%2011%20O%20Papel%20dos%20Valores%20nas%20Ci%C3%AAncias%20Sociais%20e%20Humanas.pdf.
| Google Scholar |
Springmann M (2023) Eating a nutritionally adequate diet is possible without wrecking long-term health, the planet, or the pocket. The Lancet Planetary Health 7, e544.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Springmann M, Godfray HCJ, Rayner M, Scarborough P (2016) Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(15), 4146-4151.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Springmann M, Wiebe K, Mason-D’Croz D, et al. (2018) Health and nutritional aspects of sustainable diet strategies and their association with environmental impacts: a global modelling analysis with country-level detail. The Lancet Planetary Health 2(10), e451-e461.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Stanton AV, Leroy F, Elliott C, et al. (2022) 36-fold higher estimate of deaths attributable to red meat intake in GBD 2019: is this reliable? The Lancet 399(10332), e23-e26.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Szűcs E, Geers R, Jezierski T, Sossidou EN, Broom DM (2012) Animal welfare in different human cultures, traditions and religious faiths. Asian–Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 25(11), 1499-1506.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
The Lancet (2014) Research: increasing value, reducing waste. Available at https://www.thelancet.com/series/research
The Lancet Oncology (2016) When is a carcinogen not a carcinogen? The Lancet Oncology 17(6), P681.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Thomas A (2017) Super-intelligence and eternal life: transhumanism’s faithful follow it blindly into a future for the elite. The Conversation
| Google Scholar |
UN (2019) What is the Food Systems Summit?. Available at https://www.un.org/en/food-systems-summit/about [retrieved 24 April 2023]
UN (2020) Bold actions for food as a force for good. Available at https://www.un.org/en/food-systems-summit/events/bold-actions-food-force-good [retrieved 24 April 2023]
Valdez D, Vorland CJ, Brown AW, et al. (2020) Improving open and rigorous science: ten key future research opportunities related to rigor, reproducibility, and transparency in scientific research. F1000Research 9, 1235.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
WFO (2021) Synopsis paper by Scientific Council of World Farmers Organisation: Consumption of unprocessed red meat is not a risk to health. Available at https://www.wfo-oma.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/SC-WFO-Synopsis-Paper-on-Unprocessed-Red-Meat-Consumption_final.pdf
WHO European Region (2023) The Diet Impact Assessment model: a tool for analyzing the health, environmental and affordability implications of dietary change, Document number: WHO/EURO:2023-8349-48121-71370. Available at https://www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/WHO-EURO-2023-8349-48121-71370#:~:text=The%20tool%20enables%20countries%20to,those%20associated%20with%20food%2Drelated
Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, et al. (2019) Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet 393(10170), 447-492.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
