Tech Digest

Academic Vs. Capitalist Science

Stay Up to Date!

Simply enter your email below and click SIGN UP!

From Bioscience Expert Patrick Cox - The Most Life-Changing Book You'll Read This Year - Click Here

May 30, 2017

Dear Reader,

Until this year, April 22 was celebrated by many as Earth Day. The focus of Earth Day events was support for environmental protection, particularly climate accords. The image of Earth Day has been compared to a renaissance fair, complete with references to Gaia and other quasi-mystical earth-mother notions.

This year, the movement did an about-face, explicitly embracing “science.” Earth Day was eclipsed by the “March for Science.”

The rebranding may have been an effort to counter the perception that Earth Day is anti-technology and anti-industrial. That image complicated the movement’s efforts to promote its views of climate science. Moreover, Americans show little interest in giving give up smartphones, air-conditioning or modern medicine.

The timing of the rebranding may not be optimal though. Academic science is currently suffering from a major credibility problem. Generally called the “reproducibility crisis,” it is that most peer-reviewed papers cannot be confirmed as accurate. When scientists try to duplicate studies published in academic journals, between 65% and 90% fail to yield the same results.

Obviously, this raises the possibility that “science” is either wrong or fraudulent even when it enjoys peer-reviewed consensus status.

According to Richard Price, founder of, Glenn Begley, PhD, deserves credit for bringing this troubling fact to public attention. While running Amgen’s oncology division, Begley tried to reproduce the 53 papers that form the foundational consensus of cancer researchers. Only six were reproducible.

Though it may not be evident to outsiders, academic science is shaken to its core. Important scientific publications recognize the problem and have focused on restoring reproducibility and integrity to formerly respected institutions.

Susannah Cahalan’s recent story in the New York Post, Medical Studies Are Almost Always Bogus, reflects growing public resentment. A new book by Richard Harris is even angrier. I haven’t read it but the title is Rigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope, and Wastes Billions.

It is particularly troubling that taxpayer funds are being spent on biomedical research that may impede progress but other areas of academic publishing are worse. Social “science” journals are regularly spoofed by scientists disgusted by their own profession.

Economics and climatology have problems because it’s impossible to perform controlled and blinded studies. By their nature, papers published in these areas are usually nonreproducible … even if they’re true.

If the reproducibility crisis surprises you, you’re not a research scientist. My job entails tracking scientific breakthroughs, so I know that real research scientists are more skeptical of peer-reviewed papers than are non-scientists. They know that fraudulent and sloppy research is common. Even honest intelligent researchers, however, make mistakes. Unknown factors can lead to erroneous conclusions.

It appears, for example, that rodents used in many biomedical studies react differently to researchers based on their gender. They can smell the difference. As males are more likely to be the hunter/predator in most species, male researchers make rodents nervous and effect their health.

An article in Nature summarizes the conclusion that “Male Researchers Stress Out Rodents.” The original study is titled, “Olfactory Exposure to Males, Including Men, Causes Stress and Related Analgesia in Rodents.”

If true, this means that many thousands of important and trusted studies may be seriously flawed. We should not, however, assume that the Nature paper on gender impacts is true. It may be but no real scientist believes anything based solely on one study. The best scientists question the most settled science. For example, everything that was commonly believed about salt consumption is currently being challenged. The same is true of saturated fat.

So why is the signal to noise ratio so bad in academic sciences? One factor is distilled into the axiom, publish or perish. If your job security requires publishing in journals, you may be more interested in being published than in producing meaningful research.

As the well-known Raymond “Ray” Stantz PhD has pointed out, however, things are very different in the private sector. The reproducibility scandal is primarily a problem in academia, not in business.

This doesn’t mean that academic researchers do not contribute to scientific progress. They clearly do. Some of the greatest biomedical breakthroughs of our era have come out of university labs. Typically, however, those successes are then spun off into biotech startups. Then things change.

Capitalism enforces a kind of discipline in the sciences not always found in academia. Investors want marketable results, not citations. Moreover, fear of the SEC and FDA contribute to the invisibility of private sector scientists. Companies that publish misleading information are subject to severe legal penalties that academics need not fear.

Additionally, researchers who are developing potentially profitable products are naturally much less open. If you’re in a race to find a cure for some disease, you probably won’t share critical insights with your competition.

When private sector scientists do publish, it is often only to establish the basis for patent applications. In many cases, biotech companies don’t even apply for patents. Fearing that others will pirate or reverse-engineer their discoveries, they rely on trade secrets to protect their intellectual property.

The result is that many of the most important scientific discoveries are shrouded in secrecy. Financial analysts and major investors often accept nondisclosure agreements just to find out what’s happening inside biotechs. 

To succeed financially, scientists in the private sector sacrifice the recognition and prestige that academic scientists enjoy. I know of multiple instances of Nobel prizes being awarded to academics who published results previously produced by private-sector scientists.

Moreover, science publications tend to get their information from universities. I regularly see stories announcing some historic breakthrough that actually occurred long ago in a private sector lab. An example is the spate of recent stories about the first human blood grown from stem cells. In fact, Advanced Cell Technologies, under the management of Dr. Michael West, grew blood from stem cells about a decade ago. 

Though private sector scientists may envy the respect and perks of academia, capitalism enforces a kind of discipline not always found in academia. This is why the most important biomedical science is taking place in private sector labs with no concern for reproducibility or consensus.

Patrick Cox
Patrick Cox
Editor, Transformational Technology Alert

Mauldin Economics


Stay in the Loop on Life-Extending Research
with Patrick Cox's Tech Digest

Tech Digest

Your privacy is very important to us. Please review our Privacy Policy.


« Back to Articles

From Bioscience Expert Patrick Cox - The Most Life-Changing Book You'll Read This Year - Click Here

Discuss This


We welcome your comments. Please comply with our Community Rules.


Hank Scovern

May 30, 2017, 3:10 p.m.

Sometimes true sometimes not.  Private sector pressures (meeting FDA requirements for example) encourage a different kind of data massage, cherry picking, burying of negative results, etc.  Statins for all, obesity drugs and latest greatest antidiabetic and antihypertensive agents of marginal incremental value are just a few examples of marketing trumping the science and common sense of patient care.  This is magnified by the needs of private corporations, which do not extend to promoting common sense measures (diet, exercise, stress management, hazard (e.g., lead) avoidance, workplace safety) which would reduce the need for much of what is marketed.  Private science is no panacea.

Use of this content, the Mauldin Economics website, and related sites and applications is provided under the Mauldin Economics Terms & Conditions of Use.

Unauthorized Disclosure Prohibited

The information provided in this publication is private, privileged, and confidential information, licensed for your sole individual use as a subscriber. Mauldin Economics reserves all rights to the content of this publication and related materials. Forwarding, copying, disseminating, or distributing this report in whole or in part, including substantial quotation of any portion the publication or any release of specific investment recommendations, is strictly prohibited.
Participation in such activity is grounds for immediate termination of all subscriptions of registered subscribers deemed to be involved at Mauldin Economics’ sole discretion, may violate the copyright laws of the United States, and may subject the violator to legal prosecution. Mauldin Economics reserves the right to monitor the use of this publication without disclosure by any electronic means it deems necessary and may change those means without notice at any time. If you have received this publication and are not the intended subscriber, please contact


The Mauldin Economics website, Yield Shark, Thoughts from the Frontline, Outside the Box, Over My Shoulder, Transformational Technology Alert, Rational Bear, The 10th Man, Connecting The Dots, Stray Reflections, Street Freak, ETF 20/20, Macro Growth & Income Alert, In the Money, and Mauldin Economics VIP are published by Mauldin Economics, LLC. Information contained in such publications is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The information contained in such publications is not intended to constitute individual investment advice and is not designed to meet your personal financial situation. The opinions expressed in such publications are those of the publisher and are subject to change without notice. The information in such publications may become outdated and there is no obligation to update any such information. You are advised to discuss with your financial advisers your investment options and whether any investment is suitable for your specific needs prior to making any investments.
John Mauldin, Mauldin Economics, LLC and other entities in which he has an interest, employees, officers, family, and associates may from time to time have positions in the securities or commodities covered in these publications or web site. Corporate policies are in effect that attempt to avoid potential conflicts of interest and resolve conflicts of interest that do arise in a timely fashion.
Mauldin Economics, LLC reserves the right to cancel any subscription at any time, and if it does so it will promptly refund to the subscriber the amount of the subscription payment previously received relating to the remaining subscription period. Cancellation of a subscription may result from any unauthorized use or reproduction or rebroadcast of any Mauldin Economics publication or website, any infringement or misappropriation of Mauldin Economics, LLC’s proprietary rights, or any other reason determined in the sole discretion of Mauldin Economics, LLC.

Affiliate Notice

Mauldin Economics has affiliate agreements in place that may include fee sharing. If you have a website or newsletter and would like to be considered for inclusion in the Mauldin Economics affiliate program, please go to Likewise, from time to time Mauldin Economics may engage in affiliate programs offered by other companies, though corporate policy firmly dictates that such agreements will have no influence on any product or service recommendations, nor alter the pricing that would otherwise be available in absence of such an agreement. As always, it is important that you do your own due diligence before transacting any business with any firm, for any product or service.

© Copyright 2018 Mauldin Economics