"Compromised science" news/opines (includes retractions, declining academic standards, pred-J, etc)

In an agenda-driven establishment, though, these type journalists may be becoming the norm rather than the exception.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Atlantic unfairly disses Dawkins (Jerry Coyne)
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024/09/27/the-atlantic-unfairly-disses-dawkins/

INTRO: The Atlantic decided they needed a piece on Richard Dawkins’s “farewell tour”, but they either chose the wrong journalist or asked the author to write a semi hit-piece that made Dawkins look bad. Not completely bad, mind you, for the author does mention a few good things Dawkins has done. But, overall, the piece depicts an aging man who simply needs to fight battles, and now there are no battles to fight. Once it was creationism, says senior editor Ross Andersen, but now it’s the lesser battle of “fighting wokeness”.

Since Andersen himself shows signs of “progressive” thought in his piece (he defends, for example, the teaching Māori legends as science in New Zealand), he may have an animus against Richard. I don’t know, but I know two things. First, Andersen shows no signs of having read Dawkins’s books or followed his career. Second, Anderson ends his piece, which describes his opinion of Richard’s recent lecture in Washington D.C., by saying “I was bored.” His pronouncement is distinctly un-journalistic given that Andersen describes a very enthusiastic audience lining up to get books signed, and bespeaks a reviewer more concerned with his own personal reaction than with the effect of Dawkins, his writing, and his Washington discussion on the audience (and on society in general)... (MORE - details)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Richard Dawkins keeps shrinking (the article mentioned above, via non-wall MSN)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-new-atheists-are-getting-old/ar-AA1rfjeW

EXCERPTS: For nearly an hour, Dawkins stuck largely to science, and it served him well. The latter half of the evening was heavier on culture-war material. To whoops and hollers, Dawkins expressed astonishment that anyone could believe that sex is a continuum, instead of a straightforward binary. He described safety-craving college students as “pathetic wimps.” It all seemed small, compared with the majesty of the ideas he’d been discussing just minutes before.

Near the night’s end, Dawkins told the old story of Trofim Lysenko, Stalin’s chief agronomist. Lysenko did not believe in Mendelian genetics. [...] The tale of Lysenko is almost fable-like in its moral purity, and Dawkins told it well, but only as a setup for a contemporary controversy that he wished to discuss—an ongoing dispute over school curricula in New Zealand. According to one proposal, students there would learn traditional creation stories and myths alongside standard science lessons, out of deference to the Māori, whose language and culture British settlers had tried earnestly to erase... (MORE - details)
_
 
Last edited:
Scores of papers by a prominent neuroscientist and top NIH official fall under suspicion
https://www.science.org/content/art...entist-eliezer-masliah-papers-under-suspicion

In 2016, when the U.S. Congress unleashed a flood of new funding for Alzheimer’s disease research, the National Institute on Aging (NIA) tapped veteran brain researcher Eliezer Masliah as a key leader for the effort. [...] But over the past 2 years questions have arisen about some of Masliah’s research. A Science investigation has now found that scores of his lab studies at UCSD and NIA are riddled with apparently falsified Western blots—images used to show the presence of proteins—and micrographs of brain tissue. Numerous images seem to have been inappropriately reused within and across papers, sometimes published years apart in different journals, describing divergent experimental conditions...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fraud, so much fraud (related to above)
https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/fraud-so-much-fraud

It seems like a strange thing to take someone with a long and respected career and subject them to what would essentially be a Western blot and photomicrograph audit before offering them a big position. But if the NIH had done that in 2016, they wouldn't be in the position they're in now, would they? How many people do we need to check? How many figures do we have to scrutinize? What a mess.
_
 
‘Afraid to talk’: researchers fear the end for science in Venezuela
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03144-4

Scientists, some of whom spoke to Nature on the condition of anonymity because they fear retribution from the government, say that Venezuelan research was already censored and underfunded before the election, but that they anticipate things will get even worse. They point to a bill passed by Maduro’s administration last month that regulates non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which some researchers rely on for funding or to help publish their research. This latest chapter in Maduro’s reign could spell the end for independent science in the country, they say.
_
 
Since it revolves around ethics, would have posted this solely in philosophy. But there's that bit at the end about peer review coercion and the pressures of the "academic paradigm".
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

85% of Americans want animal experiments phased out, new survey shows
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1059750

EXCERPTS: A new survey shows that Americans’ attitudes toward experiments on animals have changed significantly in recent years, with the vast majority now favoring phasing out animal experiments in favor or other research methods. The poll was conducted by Morning Consult on Sept. 5, 2024, and included 2,205 adults.

[...] Many peer reviewers have a preference for animal-based research methods. “We recently found that half of researchers surveyed had been asked by reviewers to add an animal experiment to their otherwise animal-free study,” says Catharine E. Krebs, PhD, who leads the COLAAB and is a medical research program manager with the Physicians Committee. “The publish-or-perish academic paradigm can pressure researchers to concede these requests—even when they don’t think they’re justified.”

Animal methods bias can cause delays in publication or force authors to resubmit to other journals, often lower-impact ones... (MORE - missing details)
_
 
Simufilam: controversial Alzheimer's drug revisited a year later
https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/cassava-revisited

People have made the case to me that even if there are problems with Cassava's management, that the drug's effects are interesting enough to pursue. But what if those interesting effects are a mirage? Faked up to raise money? Should we be dosing Alzheimer's patients with a compound that (at best) we have no confidence in and at worst could be an outright fraud? After all that's happened, what does it take to stop a [drug] trial?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

PhD students in Sweden accessed mental-health services at increasing rates as their studies went on
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03136-4

A study of Swedish PhD candidates has shown the vast toll that doctoral studies can take on mental health. The survey adds robust data to discussions about the mental-health crisis in academia. Studies and anecdotal evidence have long shown that PhD students can experience immense pressure to publish and to find funding and jobs in a brutally competitive landscape.
_
 
Pain researcher in Italy up to seven retractions
https://retractionwatch.com/2024/10/03/pain-researcher-in-italy-up-to-seven-retractions/

A physiatrist in Italy has lost four publications this year after two groups of researchers raised concerns about his research. The physician had three papers pulled in 2022, as reported at the time. Those retractions followed a critique by Cochrane researchers who analyzed data in 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) headed by him

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

New engineering dean has two retractions for authorship manipulation
https://retractionwatch.com/2024/10...-two-retractions-for-authorship-manipulation/

A newly appointed dean at the University of Guelph in Canada has had two papers retracted for “evidence of authorship manipulation.” Another article by the researcher, seems to match a paper that had its authorship advertised for sale, according to a post on PubPeer. He stands by his group’s work in the two retracted papers, but agreed with the retractions because he thought the investigations “raised some valid concerns.”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hidden hydras: uncovering the massive footprint of one paper mill’s operations
https://retractionwatch.com/2024/10...sive-footprint-of-one-paper-mills-operations/

At the heart of any paper mill’s operations sits an unavoidable contradiction. On the one hand, paper mills must keep their operations clandestine lest they be discovered and have their clients’ articles retracted en masse. On the other, paper mills must make themselves visible to some degree to attract new customers. [...] About a year ago, we began probing search engines ... Sure enough, one of our first searches directed us to the front page of the Academic Research and Development Association (ARDA), based in Chennai, India. ARDA presents itself as a professional organization...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Web of Science puts mega-journals Cureus and Heliyon on hold
https://retractionwatch.com/2024/09/30/web-of-science-puts-mega-journals-cureus-and-heliyon-on-hold/

Web of Science, Clarivate’s influential database of abstracts and citations, has paused indexation of new content from the open-access journals Heliyon and Cureus, apparently due to concerns about the quality of their articles.
_
 
A scientific fraud. An investigation. A lab in recovery.
www.thetransmitter.org

A scientific fraud. An investigation. A lab in recovery.

Science is built on trust. What happens when someone destroys it?
www.thetransmitter.org www.thetransmitter.org

EXCERPTS: In recent decades, scientific misconduct—formally defined as the falsification, fabrication or plagiarism of data—has lurched into the spotlight. [...] a romantic mythology often surrounds scientists. They are portrayed as “more than human, being like gods in their creativity, and also as less than human, being deprived in their work of the passions, attitudes and social ties given to ordinary men,” wrote Robert K. Merton, the founder of the sociology of science, in a 1970 essay. As a result, he wrote, the public idealizes and idolizes them.

Framed in this way, it can seem implausible for scientists to ever fake data. But the scientific world is not powered by curiosity alone: It also runs on a credit system, Merton argued. The scientists who create new knowledge are rewarded with recognition. Jobs, funding, and sometimes awards and fame, follow. Under the credit system, misconduct starts to make more sense.

And when misconduct does occur, it creates a fallout zone in the lab. Certainly it did for Bloodgood’s group. That’s because misconduct is not just a scientific betrayal; it’s a personal one as well, says C.K. Gunsalus, director of the National Center for Principled Leadership and Research Ethics at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. “It’s very hard for a lab to recover.”

This article is about that recovery, and what happens to the people left behind... (MORE - details)
_
 
comment: But it is a job, and as such the ultimate personal motive is to earn money and survive. At worst, theoretical physics might degrade into something like the humanities, where you publish papers about ideas that similarly may have little to do with reality or are simply moral and political creations (social prescriptions and ideologies) looking for activist movements to adopt them.

But some lab physicists may need a flow of hypotheses that they can test (to maintain their jobs). So sterile publications from theoretical physicists would not be desirable in that context. There may be a rough counterpart of that task in the humanities, where a section of scholars justify their employment by reviewing and critically evaluating the outputted concepts and arguments of other scholars.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This is why physics is dying (Sabine Hossenfelder)

VIDEO EXCERPTS: For decades there have been two different schools of thought in the field of loop quantum gravity, one of which, represented most prominently by Lee Smolin, has insisted that the theory can be tested with upcoming experiments. The other, represented by Carlo Rovelli, is fine with the theory being untestable for all practical purposes. So now the situation is that either the theory is falsified or it’s not falsifiable.

It’s exactly the same crap as with string theory, and supersymmetry, and inflation and dark sectors and many other research bubbles in the foundations of physics. It’s mathematical fiction. It’s nothing to do with reality anymore. I don’t understand why people get paid for doing this, and I say this as someone who once got paid for doing this.

[...] I recently heard Eric Weinstein say in a video that we are seeing the beginning of a collapse in the foundations of physics, because it’s so obvious now that string theory was a huge mistake. I think you’re wrong Eric. This will keep on going and going until physics is entirely dead.

[...] Everyone who works on this just repeats arguments that they all know to be wrong to keep the money coming. Because let’s be real, these people sit on cozy tax-paid positions with no other task than producing useless papers that no one understands and therefore no one dares criticize...

 
Last edited:
C C said:
comment: But it is a job, and as such the ultimate personal motive is to earn money and survive. At worst, theoretical physics might degrade into something like the humanities, where you publish papers about ideas that similarly may have little to do with reality or are simply moral and political creations (social prescriptions and ideologies) looking for activist movements to adopt them.

But some lab physicists may need a flow of hypotheses that they can test (to maintain their jobs). So sterile publications from theoretical physicists would not be desirable in that context. There may be a rough counterpart of that task in the humanities, where a section of scholars justify their employment by reviewing and critically evaluating the outputted concepts and arguments of other scholars.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This is why physics is dying (Sabine Hossenfelder)

VIDEO EXCERPTS: For decades there have been two different schools of thought in the field of loop quantum gravity, one of which, represented most prominently by Lee Smolin, has insisted that the theory can be tested with upcoming experiments. The other, represented by Carlo Rovelli, is fine with the theory being untestable for all practical purposes. So now the situation is that either the theory is falsified or it’s not falsifiable.

It’s exactly the same crap as with string theory, and supersymmetry, and inflation and dark sectors and many other research bubbles in the foundations of physics. It’s mathematical fiction. It’s nothing to do with reality anymore. I don’t understand why people get paid for doing this, and I say this as someone who once got paid for doing this.

[...] I recently heard Eric Weinstein say in a video that we are seeing the beginning of a collapse in the foundations of physics, because it’s so obvious now that string theory was a huge mistake. I think you’re wrong Eric. This will keep on going and going until physics is entirely dead.

[...] Everyone who works on this just repeats arguments that they all know to be wrong to keep the money coming. Because let’s be real, these people sit on cozy tax-paid positions with no other task than producing useless papers that no one understands and therefore no one dares criticize...

Click to expand...
Haha, I've already posted this one, on the "Did Einstein Overthrow Newton?" thread, thinking it would be fun to put another 50p in Axocunth's slot..........ding, ding, ding, jigger jigger........:biggrin:

But also see my remarks apropos Baggotty Jim* etc. Peter Woit also thinks this aspect of physics has taken an unproductive turning: see his review of Jim's book: https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6002

(*He and I, once upon a time in the 90s, worked in the same team at Shell, before he went back to full time science writing.:))
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: C C
Retracted articles in scientific literature: A bibliometric analysis from 2003 to 2022 using the Web of Science
https://www.cell.com/heliyon/fulltext/S2405-8440(24)14651-8

ABSTRACT: Retractions serve a crucial role in maintaining the integrity and accuracy of scientific literature. There has been growing interest in understanding the patterns behind retractions. This bibliometric study analyzed retracted articles published between 2003 and 2022, indexed by the Science Citation Index Expanded of the Web of Science Core Collection database.

A total of 8,466 retracted articles were identified, revealing an overall increase up to 2019, followed by a decline. A total of 109 countries contributed to the retracted articles, with China and the United States having the highest absolute numbers. In addition, the articles were published in 2,347 different journals, with Tumor Biology recording the largest number of retracted articles.

The top 10 most cited retracted articles indicated that data and image integrity issues were the main reasons for retraction. The primary reasons for retractions, identified by linking the retracted articles to the Retraction Watch Database, were data and results issues followed by plagiarism and duplication.

In conclusion, the present bibliometric study offered an overview of the status of retracted articles indexed by the Web of Science Core Collection over the past two decades. These findings provide insight into areas where scientific integrity may be compromised and serve as a guide to foster a responsible research environment. (MORE - research paper)
_
 
How mainstream climate science endorsed the fantasy of a global warming time machine
https://theconversation.com/how-mai...ntasy-of-a-global-warming-time-machine-225597

EXCERPT: De facto, what they said was this: staying below a temperature limit is the same as first crossing it and then, a few decades hence, using methods of removing carbon from the atmosphere to dial temperatures back down again. From some corners of the scientific literature came the assertion that this was nothing more than fantasy. A new study published in Nature has now confirmed this critique.

It found that humanity’s ability to restore Earth’s temperature below 1.5°C of warming, after overshooting it, cannot be guaranteed. Many impacts of climate change are essentially irreversible. Those that are might take decades to undo, well beyond the relevant horizon for climate politics. For policy makers of the future, it matters little that temperatures might eventually fall back again; the impacts they will need to plan for are those of the overshoot period itself... (MORE - details)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DEI Is transforming the National Science Foundation
https://www.thefp.com/p/dei-national-science-foundation-grants-report

EXCERPT: The report, titled “DEI: Division. Extremism. Ideology,” analyzed all National Science Foundation grants from 2021 through April 2024. More than 10 percent of those grants, totaling over $2 billion, prioritized attributes of the grant proposals other than their scientific quality, according to the report. What’s more, that’s a feature—not a bug—of the new grant-making process. Biden’s 2021 Scientific Integrity Task Force released a report in January 2022, stating that “activities counter to [DEIA] values are disruptive to the conduct of science.” (MORE - details)

RELATED (background schools of thought): "Decolonizing science: Undoing the colonial and racist hegemony of western science" ....... Critical theory (generic)
_
 
A journal switches to a new publisher, then corrects a paper. What should happen to the old version?
https://retractionwatch.com/2024/10...-paper-what-should-happen-to-the-old-version/

In January 2022, The Oncologist switched publishers from Wiley to Oxford University Press. Last month, the journal issued an extensive correction for one of its most popular articles [....] The article page that remains on Wiley’s website, however, does not reflect the recent correction...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Retractions begin for chemist found to have faked data in 42 papers
https://retractionwatch.com/2024/10...hemist-found-to-have-faked-data-in-42-papers/

A nanotube researcher in Japan has earned 13 retractions, with more to come, after an extensive investigation by the country’s National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) revealed widespread misconduct in his work...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Exclusive: Cancer researchers in Iran under investigation as questions swirl around dozens of studies
https://retractionwatch.com/2024/10...-as-questions-swirl-around-dozens-of-studies/

Year after year, a husband-and-wife team at a university in Iran has been publishing studies involving research on cell lines ostensibly purchased from the Pasteur Institute of Iran, in Tehran. But the couple may never have been in possession of the cells...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Former Columbia University psychiatrist committed research misconduct, says federal watchdog
https://retractionwatch.com/2024/10...ed-research-misconduct-says-federal-watchdog/

A psychiatry researcher who received a warning letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration earlier this year committed research misconduct, another federal watchdog found...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

After saying it would retract an article, Cureus changed its mind
https://retractionwatch.com/2024/10...d-retract-an-article-cureus-changed-its-mind/

Given the circumstances and details presented by both parties in this dispute, the journal has elected not to proceed with immediate retraction and instead request that formal investigations by each of your institutions be conducted in order to resolve this matter. Upon reviewing the results of both investigations, the journal will take the action deemed appropriate in light of the facts presented...
-
 
These new scientific fraud cases worry me: Now also in material science (Sabine Hossenfelder)

VIDEO EXCERPTS: Ok, you might say, but everyone knows that half of psychology is pseudoscience anyway. But how about this...

[...] There are frauds going on in photovoltaic research and in material science, too. A paper which just recently appeared on the arXiv identified more than 2000 cases in which electron microscope images were being faked. ... Because AI generated images become more and more common, scientific fraud is going to become so much worse next to this.

I always wonder why people do that. And I’m afraid the answer is cynicism. An increasing number of scientists think the system is unfair and good work is not a winning strategy. They think everyone cheats, and that justifies their own cheating. On top of that, there aren’t many penalties really. Papers will be retracted and people might be forced to prematurely retire, but then they can relax on their cozy pension...

 
An ideologically-based and misleading critique of how modern genetics is taught
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024...ng-critique-of-how-modern-genetics-is-taught/

INTRO: Over at sapiens.org, an anthropology magazine, author Elaine Guevara (a lecturer in evolutionary anthropology at Duke) takes modern genetics education to task. Making a number of assertions about what students from high school to college learn in their genetics courses, Guevara claims that this type of education imparts “zombie ideas”: outdated but perpetually revived notions that prop up biological racism.

Her main topic is race, and she does offer some insights that modern genetics has given us about differences between geographic populations (I prefer to use “populations” rather than “races”), but these insights have been known for a long time. By failing to tell us that the errors earlier biologists have made about race have been refined and, to a large degree, dispelled, Guevara is herself deficient in describing the state of modern genetics.

Guevara makes several accusations that, I think, are misleading. I’ll group her misleading conclusions under bold headings (the wording of those is mine). Quotes from her paper, or my paper with Luana Maroja, are indented and identified... (MORE - details)
_
 
C C said:
An ideologically-based and misleading critique of how modern genetics is taught
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024...ng-critique-of-how-modern-genetics-is-taught/

INTRO: Over at sapiens.org, an anthropology magazine, author Elaine Guevara (a lecturer in evolutionary anthropology at Duke) takes modern genetics education to task. Making a number of assertions about what students from high school to college learn in their genetics courses, Guevara claims that this type of education imparts “zombie ideas”: outdated but perpetually revived notions that prop up biological racism.

Her main topic is race, and she does offer some insights that modern genetics has given us about differences between geographic populations (I prefer to use “populations” rather than “races”), but these insights have been known for a long time. By failing to tell us that the errors earlier biologists have made about race have been refined and, to a large degree, dispelled, Guevara is herself deficient in describing the state of modern genetics.

Guevara makes several accusations that, I think, are misleading. I’ll group her misleading conclusions under bold headings (the wording of those is mine). Quotes from her paper, or my paper with Luana Maroja, are indented and identified... (MORE - details)
_
Click to expand...
I seem to recall that Coyne has something of a crusade going on regarding “political correctness” in science, and this has got him into a few fights. Is that correct, or am I mistaken?
 
exchemist said:
I seem to recall that Coyne has something of a crusade going on regarding “political correctness” in science, and this has got him into a few fights. Is that correct, or am I mistaken?
Click to expand...

Coyne, Dawkins, and several others (including skeptics like Michael Shermer). Basically the old guard futilely tying to hold back the tide of Gen-Y and Gen-Z scientists who are gung-ho about the policy offshoots of critical theory. The times they are a-changin'.

Needless to say, the ID and creationist camps are gleefully celebrating (below). Perhaps mistakenly believing their culture will benefit with the others (the non-Western colonial victims).

(Oct 8, 2024) After Dawkins Is Canceled, What Comes Next?
https://evolutionnews.org/2024/10/after-dawkins-is-canceled-what-comes-next/

Atheist evolutionary biologists like Dawkins, Coyne, Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002), and others were once so culturally dominant that they could shut down discussions of the evidence for design in nature simply by refusing to participate. But now they are increasingly the targets, not the archers. [...] If the National Academies of Science continue to embrace Woke culture, many former lions of atheism in science may experience a hard landing.
_
 
Last edited:
C C said:
Coyne, Dawkins, and several others (including skeptics like Michael Shermer). Basically the old guard futilely tying to hold back the tide of Gen-Y and Gen-Z scientists who are gung-ho about the policy offshoots of critical theory. The times they are a-changin'.

Needless to say, the ID and creationist camps are gleefully celebrating (below). Perhaps mistakenly believing their culture will benefit with the others (the non-Western colonial victims).

(Oct 8, 2024) After Dawkins Is Canceled, What Comes Next?
https://evolutionnews.org/2024/10/after-dawkins-is-canceled-what-comes-next/

Atheist evolutionary biologists like Dawkins, Coyne, Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002), and others were once so culturally dominant that they could shut down discussions of the evidence for design in nature simply by refusing to participate. But now they are increasingly the targets, not the archers. [...] If the National Academies of Science continue to embrace Woke culture, many former lions of atheism in science may experience a hard landing.
_
Click to expand...
Yes, the war against cant is unending.

But the creationists don't worry me, I have to say. They have been clutching at straws for decades.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C C
‘Doing good science is hard’: retraction of high-profile reproducibility study prompts soul-searching
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03178-8#ref-CR1

The retraction of a high-profile paper that tested ways to improve the soundness of scientific studies has highlighted the challenges of such ‘reproducibility’ research. The retracted paper’s authors include some of the titans in the field. In the study, published in Nature Human Behaviour last November, the authors described a rigorous research protocol involving features such as large sample sizes, with the goal of ensuring the soundness of psychological experiments. [...] The authors agree with only one of the journal’s concerns, which the authors attribute to an innocent oversight. One of the authors, Jonathan Schooler, a psychologist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, told Nature that the group is working on a new version of the manuscript for resubmission.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Routine dental X-rays are not backed by evidence—experts want it to stop
https://arstechnica.com/health/2024/10/do-you-really-need-those-routine-dental-x-rays-probably-not/

The problem has bubbled up again in a series of commentary pieces published in JAMA Internal Medicine today. The pieces were all sparked by a viewpoint that Ars reported on in May, in which three dental and health experts highlighted that many routine aspects of dentistry, including biannual cleanings, are not evidence-based and that the industry is rife with overdiagnosis and overtreatment. That viewpoint, titled "Too Much Dentistry," also appeared in JAMA Internal Medicine. The new pieces take a more specific aim at dental radiography. But, as in the May viewpoint, experts also blasted dentistry more generally for being out of step with modern medicine in its lack of data to support its practices—practices that continue amid financial incentives to overtreat and little oversight to stop it, they note.
_
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top