Sutter, an astrophysicist at Stony Brook University, levels a fiery critique at the perverse incentives that compromise the quality of scientific research. The pressures captured in the dictum “publish or perish,” Sutter contends, have fueled a $10 billion science and technology publishing industry “with double-digit profit margins” while producing a rash of studies with fabricated or unverifiable results. For example, in 2014 a Ohio State University geneticist was accused of cutting and pasting DNA test results to create the impression of active proteins where there were none, and a Harvard University biologist resigned in 2010 after assistants alleged he told them to ignore results contradicting his hypothesis regarding monkeys’ ability to recognize auditory patterns. Suggesting that subtler forms of bunk science are widespread, Sutter explains how researchers use p-hacking (massaging data so that statistical quirks appear to show correlations between likely unrelated variables) to create the impression of positive findings and boost their chances of publication…. It’s an ardent appraisal of what ails the scientific establishment.
— Publishers Weekly
Sutter addresses the American public’s distrust of science by criticizing common practices in the academic science community. He argues that a “publish or perish” culture leads scientists to engage in unethical behavior, such as falsifying data or ignoring results that contradict their theories or hypotheses. He further admonishes academic publishers, contending that they are biased toward only publishing new findings rather than replications or nuanced results, which are essential aspects of scientific investigations. Sutter also criticizes the review policies of federal grant agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health, that must report to Congress and are under immense pressure to produce research results, making the agencies less likely to fund high-risk, innovative research. Highlighting academia’s lack of transparency regarding the scarcity of tenure-track positions, he draws attention to the lack of racial minorities and women in science, advocating for stronger mentorship programs to recruit and advance individuals from underrepresented groups. Finally, he implores scientists to increase outreach by accepting television and newspaper interviews, writing policy briefs, and engaging in political activism. This book may be especially useful for undergraduates pursuing a science career and faculty at institutions of higher education. Recommended. All readers.
— Choice Reviews