Scientific Sophistry Reduces Trust in Science
Behind the rosy facade of
objective scientists pursuing truth
is a not-so-truthful side
by Jerry Bergman, PhD
Dr Bergman’s book will quickly sober up those under the influence of scientism.
Those of us on the creation side of the origins debate are very aware of the other side of science—the dark side. I have published five books documenting the problems that plague those of us who are critical of the Darwinian worldview. These persecutions administered against us include denial of degrees or tenure, termination of teaching contracts, unprofessional name-calling and, in general, academic intolerance, and personal nastiness. I have also documented extensive fraud in attempts by evolutionists to support evolution.[1]
A New Fraud Uncovered
Despite being so familiar with the intolerant behavior of evolutionists toward Darwin Deniers and their willingness to commit fraud, a new report surprised me. It was published in the leading American science magazine, aptly titled Science. The problem of scientific sophistry is worse than I previously thought. The article concerned deception in one very narrow area, Alzheimer’s disease research. The ramifications, however, should concern every citizen about science in general.
In the article, Carl Elliott reviewed a new book by Charles Piller titled, Doctored: Fraud, Arrogance and Tragedy in the Quest to Cure Alzheimer’s. The fraud involved leading universities, including Harvard, and some of the principal researchers, such as one of the most-acclaimed neuroscientists in the field, Professor Karen Ashe.[2] While reading this book, Elliott was shocked.
Doctored is a dark, cautionary tale of the way frauds, cheats, and hustlers have undermined research into Alzheimer’s disease. Along the way, Piller catalogs an array of academic sins worthy of Augustine: greed, arrogance, selfdeception, and hypocrisy, not to mention a healthy dose of hubris. That Piller pursues the story with the clear-eyed tenacity of a private detective does little to lighten the mood. It is an impressively demoralizing achievement.
Uncovering the corruption was Vanderbilt University junior professor Matthew Schrag. Professor Schrag was drawn into exposing the fraud in 2021 by several neuroscientist investors who believed that some simufilam drug research might be fraudulent. Simufilam was designed to counteract the protein changes that were causing Alzheimer’s disease, thereby slowing the disease’s progression. At least that was the hope. A string of careless procedures amounting to misconduct or fraud allowed the drug to slip through safety checks.
Uncovering the Fraud
The first step in testing the efficacy of a new drug is a Phase I study designed to assess risk. It may involve minor risks even though at this level of investigation the drug had passed the preclinical testing phase. If judged successful after Phase 1, the drug progresses to Phase 2 trials to determine the effectiveness of the drug in treating a particular disease or condition in a sample of 100 to 300 volunteers. This phase may last from several months to two years. When a drug has passed Phase 2, Phase 3 clinical trials are begun. Phase 3 trials are conducted at multiple centers involving several hundred to several thousand patients. This testing provides additional data on the drug’s safety and efficacy.
An ad for the drug at issue in the fraud. From Wikimedia Commons.
It was determined at this advanced level of testing that volunteers who took simufilam performed no better in cognitive or everyday-life activities than those who received a placebo.[3] Failing phase 3 so spectacularly was a major concern. How did it get through preclinical testing and Phases 1 and 2? The negative result raised the clear possibility of misconduct that might have occurred at one or more of the previous steps.
This is why the authorities asked Professor Schrag to investigate what happened that caused this very promising drug to spectacularly fail the Phase 3 trial. Yet Schrag hesitated. He knew that his career could be destroyed in the process like a snitch who exposes his criminal associates and is condemned by his former supporters.
The Extent of Scientific Misconduct Goes Beyond One Case
What Schrag discovered during his research was enough to convince him that research misconduct is far more pervasive than he had ever suspected. Some of the observations that came from Schrag’s investigation of his academic colleagues included a
pervasive atmosphere of fear. Virtually everyone Piller tries to speak to is terrified—of blowing the whistle on misconduct, of speaking to a reporter on the record, of being fired, sued, blackballed, or financially destroyed. Even researchers who have behaved honorably are terrified of being wrongly accused or vilified for honest mistakes. Although a few own up to their mistakes, most seem far more concerned with protecting their reputations. They hide behind attorneys and refuse to answer questions.[4]
Individual scientists might cheat, but Elliott says the blame needs to be spread across scientific institutions. He writes that it would be misleading to lay all the blame on individual researchers, because they
work in a system that gives them powerful incentives to cheat and little risk of being punished. Scientific journals resist retracting flawed papers. Understaffed oversight bodies operate at a glacial pace. High-profile researchers add their names to papers they have not properly examined and join the boards of questionable companies. Perhaps most damaging of all is the behavior of research institutions, many of which do their best to cover up misconduct and protect the researchers responsible.[5]
Assessing the Damage
The problem of fraud in science is so great that a website called Retraction Watch was developed in 2010 to record retractions with the goal of reducing them, or at least mitigating the harm they cause. One such case occurred at
the University of Minnesota [which] holds the dubious distinction of producing two of the five most highly cited scientific papers ever to be retracted. That distinction caps an extraordinary string of research scandals that have plagued the institution at regular intervals since the early 1990s: conflicts of interest, financial crimes, and, most disturbing of all, abuses of human subjects.[6]
Medical experimentation is important because it can result in safe drugs that save thousands of lives, such as insulin.[7] Results can only be trusted if trials are conducted with utmost integrity.
Financial fraud propels some of the misconduct in science. (Grok/XI)
Retraction Watch is a blog that reports on retractions of scientific papers. Launched in August 2010, the website soon proved that fraud is a big problem, especially in medicine. Retractions of papers are generally not announced, nor are the reasons for retractions publicized. For example, a paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reported a potential role for a certain drug against some types of breast cancers. It turned out to be unfounded. Although retracted, the retraction was not reported in the media that had earlier reported its positive conclusions.
Lack of transparency about retractions creates substantial risks to public health. Other researchers, and even the public who are unaware of the retraction, may make decisions based on false information.
Retraction Watch has shown that scientific misconduct is more common than was previously reported. Despite recent scandals involving research misconduct, the academic community as a whole was then not very interested in exposing wrongdoing and scientific errors even with all this added evidence.[8] Why? In Scientific American in 2023, Oransky and Marcus cast blame far and wide across the scientific community.
Scientists, universities, and publishers may believe that their reasons for failing to correct the record are sound and perhaps even good for science. But at a time when so many are rightfully concerned about a lack of trust in science, they might want to look in the mirror and realize that every time an obvious flaw is allowed to stand without comment, another justifiable skeptic gets their wings.[9]
In its first year alone, Retraction Watch listed approximately 200 retractions. In October 2019, the Retraction Watch Database reached 20,000 entries. As of January 2024, it contained over 50,000 retraction entries.
Summary
Fraud, misconduct and carelessness in science is a major problem, not only in the area of evolution, but also in the area of medicine where it could cause both mental and physical harm. The more fraud is exposed, the less public trust in science, which can lead to negative consequences in medicine or in science as a whole.
Bergman unmasks the real Darwin from the media caricature
On the subject of evolution, however, public awareness of “blunders, frauds and forgeries” as exposed in my book could encourage a less dogmatic view of evolution. It might also help people to be more open to the creation alternative.
References
[1] Bergman, Jerry, Evolution’s Blunders, Frauds, and Forgeries, CMI Publishing, Atlanta, GA, 2017.
[2] Elliott, Carl, “A scientific field, misled. Fraud undermines Alzheimer’s disease research,” Science 387(6735):724, 13 February 2025.
[3] Piller, Charles, ”Controversial Alzheimer’s drug from Cassava Sciences fails clinical testing,” Science, 25 November 2024.
[4] Elliott, 2025.
[5] Elliott, 2025.
[6] Elliott, 2025.
[7] Elliott, C. The Occasional Human Sacrifice: Medical Experimentation and the Price of Saying No. New York: Norton, 2024.
[8] Oransky, Ivan, and Adam Marcus, “Science corrects itself, right? A scandal at Stanford says it doesn’t,” Scientific American, 23 August 2023.
[9] Oransky and Marcus, 2023.
Dr. Jerry Bergman has taught biology, genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, geology, and microbiology for over 40 years at several colleges and universities including Bowling Green State University, Medical College of Ohio where he was a research associate in experimental pathology, and The University of Toledo. He is a graduate of the Medical College of Ohio, Wayne State University in Detroit, the University of Toledo, and Bowling Green State University. He has over 1,900 publications in 14 languages and 40 books and monographs. His books and textbooks that include chapters that he authored are in over 1,800 college libraries in 27 countries. So far over 80,000 copies of the 60 books and monographs that he has authored or co-authored are in print. For more articles by Dr Bergman, see his Author Profile.