David,-> > Bad ideas are always expelled from science by scientists, never once has an idea been debunked due to financial ties. 
> 
> The time is now. Your life's experience is getting in the way. Remember, when there is fraud follow the money.-Alright, humor me. What was the last scientific idea that was debunked due to money? -> > 
> > Though one point you bring up that I think is valid--a journal writing is always a summary of all a person's work. Why isn't there a place to deposit all raw data the scientist produced?
> 
> That's the point. It isn't being done properly.-Well, arguably--it's never been done. Not in the US, not here, not anywhere. Most data that scientists accrue accrues between the ears. Part of the reason for that computational biology project at UNO is to gain access to those biochemical insights that don't get published. I think we might be talking at two related, but different points.-> > 
> > In my mind, think of all the potential information that is lost because the scientist thinks something is unimportant. Some outlier, etc; you know what I mean here.
> 
> Agreed. 
> > 
> > THAT's the kind of thing that universities need to undertake.
> 
> But they are contaminated by huge grants also.
> -Ah... so the only bodies conducting this kind of research apparently can't be trusted because they get big grants? Not a terribly convincing argument. -> Read Pat Michaels. He is an honest disagreer who debunked material that James Hanson fooled congress with several years ago. Hanson presented temperature records that left off heads and tails of preceeding and following years of data, with obvious changes to the slope of temperature over many decades when everything available was added back. Hanson started this phoniness.
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html-Isn&... Hanson the hockey-stick graph guy?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

This article reviews the issue of finding funds for research by med schools, independent institutions and the pharmaceutical industry:

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/opinion--the-money-culture-in-academic-biome...

"Recent New York Times’s articles focused on Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center have drawn attention to conflicts when academic biomedical researchers consult for pharmaceutical companies. Such conflicts are only one symptom of an expanding “money culture,” where revenue is valued more than research and basic science is diminished. This will delay the advances needed for future clinical breakthroughs.

"Academic biomedical research occurs largely at university medical schools and a few free-standing centers. Research spans clinical studies to laboratory investigations of fundamental disease processes. Clinical researchers deliver patient care at organizationally separate academic hospitals.

"These institutes face significant financial pressures. They do not receive a university operating budget and must pay their own way. Some even pay a form of “rent” to parent universities. Tenure is infrequent and rarely covers a full salary. From deans to junior faculty, in times flush or lean, there is funding anxiety.

"The anxiety diminishes basic science. Seeking more clinical revenue, institute leaders have accommodated hospital executives in expanding routine clinical volume well beyond that needed for clinical research and training. Academic hospitals have been busy buying community practices. Research institutes increasingly resemble large community medical provider groups. Basic science departments stagnate as leaders focus on managing ever larger clinical workforces.

"There is also destructive interaction between financial anxiety and the genomic revolution. Spurred initially by hopes of curing disease and profitable low hanging fruit, such as human insulin, fund-hungry institutes have shifted the focus of basic laboratory research to drug development. Partnerships with pharmaceutical companies and faculty consulting have proliferated. There is a frenzy to patent every minor advance and many institutes have acquired pharmaceutical manufacturing technology, systems requiring industrial engineering expertise rarely found in academia. Comparing my work evaluating projects for the Southern California Biomedical Council, an industry trade group, with 17 years at academic biomedical research institutes, I find it increasingly difficult to distinguish institute laboratory research from company research.

***

"Unlike most academic disciplines, biomedical research involves a massive and technologically complex infrastructure. I have observed that, relegated to the category of support staff, the necessary management experts have little status or influence in this MD-dominated world. As a result, tradeoff studies are rarely performed and institute investment strategy is often determined by the squeakiest faculty wheel. The typical response to the resulting inefficiency is to seek additional funds, further increasing inefficiency. Basic science is a poor way to “feed the beast.”

"Lack of patience for life cycle cost analysis is an example. In my experience as a senior administrator at a number of academic medical centers, I have seen leaders jump at every expansion opportunity while ignoring downstream costs. But donors want their names on new buildings, not on the resulting parking lots, utility systems, roads, etc. The more money raised, the more money needed. To compensate, institute leaders tie faculty incentives, such as salaries, bonuses, institutional support, and minor perks, to the volume of activities generating overhead revenue. Quantity replaces quality and growth becomes the most important metric. No wonder there is concern about scientific accuracy and reproducibility. The “money culture” is incompatible with science."

Comment: I've not copied his 'solutions', but his description of the problem tells us why there is so much hype and fake science news. Basic research unearths how life works in order to find ways to interrupt failed systems with new profitable drugs and adds tremendously to our knowledge of the complexity of living biology, as a secondary benefit.