by Richard Gunderman, Law & Liberty, April 1, 2025.
Excerpt:
I must admit, I never imagined outright fraud would infiltrate the scientific community to the extent it has. While the Lancet—a paragon of medical journalism—infamously published a paper that falsely linked the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine to childhood autism, I believed such egregious lapses in editorial integrity and scientific honesty were anomalies. Alas, it seems I was overly optimistic.
Recent revelations indicate that a staggering proportion of scientific studies are not reproducible, with a notable fraction being outright fraudulent. This troubling trend has given rise to dedicated scientists who are now on a quest to unearth deficient or deceptive research. A prime resource in this battle is the website Retraction Watch, which meticulously tracks and reports on the retraction of papers deemed too flawed to be credible. Such retractions serve as crucial warnings that certain findings should be approached with skepticism or outright disregarded.
by Zachary Caverly, Reason, April 1, 2025.
Excerpt:
In the pre-NIH era, U.S. biomedical science flourished with considerable private funding, and while proponents of increased public expenditures argue it bolstered an already solid foundation, the actual influence of government investments on landmark research is often exaggerated. Take the Human Genome Project, for instance. While the NIH proudly proclaims this monumental endeavor transformed the scientific workforce, it was the innovative automatic gene sequencer—a brainchild of Leroy Hood—that made it all possible. Ironically, Hood’s invention received some of the most dismal reviews from the NIH.
It was the philanthropic efforts of Sol Price, founder of warehouse superstores, that ultimately brought this technology to life, allowing the human genome to be sequenced. Similar narratives of private benefaction overshadowing government grants can be found in the realm of stem cell research.
Consider the case of mRNA vaccine development: The NIH timeline suggests that years of government-funded HIV research was pivotal in this breakthrough technology. However, the lead innovator, Katalin Karikó, faced numerous hurdles in academia and even suffered demotion due to her inability to secure grants. Her eventual departure to BioNTech, where she contributed to the Pfizer vaccine, is glaringly absent from the NIH’s narrative.
by Ronald Bailey, Reason, April 1, 2025.
Excerpt:
A recent ruling by a federal district court has championed medical innovation and patient rights, overturning the FDA’s misguided attempt to regulate laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) and in vitro diagnostics.
LDTs are diagnostic tests crafted, manufactured, and executed by individual labs, capable of diagnosing conditions and informing treatment through the detection of biomarkers in blood, saliva, or tissue. These tests can indicate risks for diseases like Alzheimer’s disease, identify cancers, and guide breast cancer treatment.
In May, the FDA introduced sweeping regulations targeting these tests for the first time. This is the same agency that infamously bungled COVID-19 testing protocols back in 2020, leading to chaos as the pandemic unfolded.
As I previously reported, out of billions of tests administered each year, the FDA attempted to justify its heavy-handed oversight by citing a handful of problematic medical device reports and unverified claims—specifically, nine and four different tests respectively—between 2009 and 2023. The majority of issues pointed to by the FDA involved tests that had already been submitted for evaluation and subsequently rejected or modified as necessary.
Excerpt:
The 2025 EdChoice Friedman Index serves as a straightforward metric for assessing the availability of private K–12 educational options across the United States. Drawing inspiration from Milton and Rose Friedman’s vision of universal educational choice, the index evaluates how effectively each state allows families to allocate education funding towards their preferred schools, whether public or private.
Since 2020, there has been a notable surge in educational choice initiatives nationwide. Fourteen states have been classified as offering “universal choice,” yet many of these states impose restrictions that limit accessibility due to funding caps. The EdChoice Friedman Index aims to illuminate the true extent of educational choice available to families.
Note: The omission of any discussion regarding Trump’s tariffs does not imply endorsement. Several economists are addressing this topic with clarity, making it easy for readers to find relevant commentary on platforms like EconLog and others. I will provide additional insights on this matter next week.
