Category: Economics

The Chicago School of Economics Was Once Uniquely Focused on Real World Problems

The Chicago School of Economics, most associated with Milton Friedman and George Stigler, saw itself as different from all the other top graduate programs in economics. At Chicago, the priority was solving applied problems, and only as much mathematics and theory should be used as was necessary to solve them. The other schools prioritized mathematical puzzle-solving and mathematical rigor and sophistication.

For those who might suspect Chicago was full of itself, the non-Chicago economists Arjo Klamar and David Colander dispelled the suspicion in their The Making of an Economist. After thorough interviewing and surveying of graduate students at the five or six top graduate programs, they concluded that graduate students at all but Chicago were cynically discouraged to realize that they were being trained to solve mathematical puzzles, while only those at Chicago still felt that they were being trained to matter in the real world.

I noticed that a recent obituary for the economist Stanley Fischer quotes Fischer as stating some diplomatic confirmation of the Klamar and Colander conclusion:

After earning his Ph.D. at M.I.T. in 1969, Mr. Fischer moved to the University of Chicago as a postdoctoral researcher and assistant professor. “At M.I.T. you did the mathematical work,” he told The New York Times in 1998, “and at Chicago you asked the question of how this applies to the real world” (Hagerty 2025, p. A17).

Alas, I fear that what was once true, is true no longer. I fear that if Klamar and Colander were to repeat their study today, they would find that Chicago has joined the other top programs in prioritizing mathematical puzzle-solving and mathematical rigor and sophistication.

The obituary of Stanley Fischer, quoted above, is:

James R. Hagerty. “Stanley Fischer, 81, Economist Who Helped Defuse Crises, Dies.” The New York Times (Mon., June 2, 2025): A17.

(Note: the online version of the Steve Lohr article was updated June 10, 2025, and has the title “Stanley Fischer, Who Helped Defuse Financial Crises, Dies at 81.”)

The Klamar and Colander book mentioned above is:

Klamer, Arjo, and David Colander. The Making of an Economist. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1990.

“Gold Standard” RCT Studies Do Not Always Agree on Broad Issues

Randomized double-blind clinical trials (RCTs) are usually labeled the “gold standard” of medical evidence. But any given clinical trial can be done in an infinite number of ways. The length and duration of the RCT can vary. The eligibility requirements can vary. The definition of the placebo or comparison treatment can vary.

So on the broad issue of whether red meat is good for the heart, an RCT that compares the heart effects of red meat versus the heart effects of chicken, can yield different results than an RCT that compares the heart effects of red meat versus the heart effects of a plant-based diet.

Both RCTs might be competently done, involving no dishonesty or fraud.

We tend to overgeneralize the results of an RCT, for instance saying “red meat is heart healthy,” or “red meat is not heart healthy.” Whereas all we are justified in saying is “red meat is equally heart healthy as chicken” and “read meat is less heart healthy than a plant-based diet.”

Since RCTs are expensive and time-consuming, physicians and patients will often have to choose between treatments where no RCT has been done where the researchers made the choices that are most relevant to the patient’s situation.

And in an environment where RCT costs are high and funding is scarce, are researchers to be condemned if among the myriad varying ways of setting up the RCT, they choose the ways most likely to yield the results that will be appealing to their funder?

The article quoted below, in passages I did not quote, assumes this is only an issue with industry-funded research. But government funding review panels also have preferred outcomes. For example, Charles Piller in Doctored has recently documented that government funders have been more likely to fund RCTs that support the amyloid hypothesis of the cause of Alzheimer’s.

So is there hope for those who want to take effective action against dire disease? Yes, we can recognize that not all sound actionable evidence comes from RCTs. We can stop mandating Phase 3 trials, so that a more diverse assortment of plausible therapies can be explored. We can encourage diverse, decentralized funding sources.

(p. D6) In a review published last week in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, scientists came to a concerning conclusion. Red meat appeared healthier in studies that were funded by the red meat industry.

. . .

Past research funded by the sugar industry, for instance, has downplayed the relationship between sugar and health conditions like obesity and heart disease. And studies funded by the alcohol industry have suggested that moderate drinking could be part of a healthy diet.

Miguel López Moreno, a researcher at Francisco de Vitoria University in Spain who led the new analysis, said in an email that he wanted to know if similar issues were happening with the research on unprocessed red meat.

. . .

Dr. Moreno and his colleagues found that the trials with funding from the red meat industry were nearly four times as likely to report favorable or neutral cardiovascular results after eating unprocessed red meat when compared with the studies with no such links.

. . .

These differing results may have stemmed from how the studies were set up in the first place, Dr. Tobias wrote in an editorial for the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that accompanied the new study.

Individual nutrition studies can be good at showing how the health effects of certain foods compare with those of other specific foods. But to demonstrate whether a particular food, or food group like red meat, is good or bad for health in general, scientists must look at the results from many different studies that compare it to all possible food groups and diets.

The new review showed that, on the whole, the industry-funded red meat studies neglected to compare red meat to the full range of foods people might eat — including food we know to be good for the heart like whole grains or plant-based protein sources such as tofu, nuts or legumes. Instead, many of the studies compared unprocessed red meat to other types of animal protein like chicken or fish, or to carbohydrates like bagels, pasta or rice.

The independently funded studies, on the other hand, compared red meat to “the full spectrum” of different diets — including other types of meat, whole grains and heart-healthy plant foods like soy products, nuts and beans — Dr. Tobias said. This more comprehensive look offers a fuller picture of red meat’s risks or benefits, she said.

. . .

A spokeswoman for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association said in an email that “beef farmers and ranchers support gold standard scientific research,” and that both animal and plant sources of protein can be part of a heart-healthy diet.

For the full story see:

Caroline Hopkins Legaspi. “Eyes on the Outcomes Of Red Meat Research.” The New York Times (Tues., May 27, 2025): D6.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date May 20, 2025, and has the title “Is Red Meat Bad for Your Heart? It May Depend on Who Funded the Study.”)

The academic article co-authored by Moreno and mentioned above is:

López-Moreno, Miguel, Ujué Fresán, Carlos Marchena-Giráldez, Gabriele Bertotti, and Alberto Roldán-Ruiz. “Industry Study Sponsorship and Conflicts of Interest on the Effect of Unprocessed Red Meat on Cardiovascular Disease Risk: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 121, no. 6 (June 2025): 1246-57.

Some other articles discussing cases where industry funding is alleged to have funded biased research are:

Anahad O’Connor. “Sugar Backers Paid to Shift Blame to Fat.” The New York Times (Tues., Sept. 13, 2016): A1 & ?.

(Note: the online version of the story has the date Sept. 12, 2016, and has the title “How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat.”)

Alice Callahan. “Is Fake Meat Superior to the Real Thing?” The New York Times (Tues., Feb. 18, 2025): D7.

(Note: the online version of the story has the date Feb. 17, 2025, and has the title “Is Fake Meat Better for You Than Real Meat?”)

Roni Caryn Rabin. “U.S. Wooed Alcohol Industry for a Drinking Study.” The New York Times, First Section (Sun., March 18, 2018): 1 & ??.

(Note: the online version of the story has the date March 17, 2018, and has the title “Federal Agency Courted Alcohol Industry to Fund Study on Benefits of Moderate Drinking.”)

The Newest A.I. “Reasoning Models Actually Hallucinate More Than Their Predecessors”

I attended an I.H.S. Symposium last week where one of my minor discoveries was that a wide range of intellectuals, regardless of location on the political spectrum, share a concern for the allegedly damaging labor market effects of A.I.  As in much else I am an outlier–I am not concerned about A.I.

But since so many are concerned, and believe A.I. undermines my case for a better labor market under innovative dynamism, I will continue to occasionally highlight articles that present the evidence and arguments that reassure me.

(p. B1) “Humanity is close to building digital superintelligence,” Altman declared in an essay this week, and this will lead to “whole classes of jobs going away” as well as “a new social contract.” Both will be consequences of AI-powered chatbots taking over all our white-collar jobs, while AI-powered robots assume the physical ones.

Before you get nervous about all the times you were rude to Alexa, know this: A growing cohort of researchers who build, study and use modern AI aren’t buying all that talk.

The title of a fresh paper from Apple says it all: “The Illusion of Thinking.” In it, a half-dozen top researchers probed reasoning models—large language models that “think” about problems longer, across many steps—from the leading AI labs, including OpenAI, DeepSeek and Anthropic. They found little evidence that these are capable of reasoning anywhere close to the level their makers claim.

. . .

(p. B4) Apple’s researchers found “fundamental limitations” in the models. When taking on tasks beyond a certain level of complexity, these AIs suffered “complete accuracy collapse.” Similarly, engineers at Salesforce AI Research concluded that their results “underscore a significant gap between current LLM capabilities and real-world enterprise demands.”

Importantly, the problems these state-of-the-art AIs couldn’t handle are logic puzzles that even a precocious child could solve, with a little instruction. What’s more, when you give these AIs that same kind of instruction, they can’t follow it.

. . .

Gary Marcus, a cognitive scientist who sold an AI startup to Uber in 2016, argued in an essay that Apple’s paper, along with related work, exposes flaws in today’s reasoning models, suggesting they’re not the dawn of human-level ability but rather a dead end. “Part of the reason the Apple study landed so strongly is that Apple did it,” he says. “And I think they did it at a moment in time when people have finally started to understand this for themselves.”

In areas other than coding and mathematics, the latest models aren’t getting better at the rate that they once did. And the newest reasoning models actually hallucinate more than their predecessors.

For the full commentary see:

Christopher Mims. “Keywords: Apple Calls Today’s AI ‘The Illusion of Thinking’.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., June 14, 2025): B1 & B4.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date June 13, 2025, and has the title “Keywords: Why Superintelligent AI Isn’t Taking Over Anytime Soon.” In the original print and online versions, the word “more” appears in italics for emphasis.)

Sam Altman’s blog essay mentioned above is:

Altman, Sam. “The Gentle Singularity.” In Sam Altman blog, June 10, 2025, URL: https://blog.samaltman.com/the-gentle-singularity.

The Apple research article briefly summarized in a passage quoted above is:

Shojaee, Parshin, Iman Mirzadeh, Keivan Alizadeh, Maxwell Horton, Samy Bengio, Mehrdad Farajtabar. “The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models Via the Lens of Problem Complexity.” Apple Machine Learning Research, June 2025, URL: https://machinelearning.apple.com/research/illusion-of-thinking.

Puzzling Studies Claim Economic Downturns Encourage Innovation

A recent paper co-authored by Talay joins several other studies (e.g., Anthony 2009 and Field 2011) in claiming that economic downturns encourage economic innovation.

I have always found these studies deeply puzzling. When I acquire infinite time, I plan to hunker down and try to figure out what is going on.

My initial hypothesis is that downturns do not actually help innovators, but that those entrepreneurs who persist in bringing new goods to market during a downturn either have higher levels of perseverance or else have better new goods.

In other words the puzzling results are due to a selection issue–other things are not equal, and downturns do not encourage innovation.

The WSJ article that summarizes the recent paper is:

Lisa Ward. “When a Recession Helps Product Launch.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., June 17, 2025): B6.

(Note: the online version of the WSJ article has the date June 12, 2025, and has the title “Yes or No: It’s Smart to Launch a New Product in a Recession.”)

The recent academic published paper co-authored by Talay and summarized in The Wall Street Journal article mentioned and cited above is:

Talay, M. Berk, Koen Pauwels, and Steven H. Seggie. “Why and When to Launch New Products During a Recession: An Empirical Investigation of the U.K. FMCG Industry and the U.S. Automobile Industry.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 52, no. 2 (March 2024): 576-98.

The two books cited above that support the claim that downturns encourage innovation are:

Anthony, Scott D. The Silver Lining: An Innovation Playbook for Uncertain Times. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2009.

Field, Alexander J. A Great Leap Forward: 1930s Depression and U.S. Economic Growth, Yale Series in Economic and Financial History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2011.

The Classical Liberal Economist’s Current Job: Minimize the Harm from Tariffs, Maximize the Benefits from Deregulation and Downsizing Government

I used to run into Richard Burkhauser at economics meetings occasionally and always enjoyed talking with him and hearing about his research. I believe Richard’s activity in the first Trump administration makes sense: if tariffs are going to be imposed, do them in a way that minimizes the damage to the economy. Although not mentioned in the article quoted below, I am sure Richard also did what he could to further the part of Trump’s agenda that was positive for he economy: reducing regulations so entrepreneurs can innovate and create jobs, and downsizing the government so taxpayers can keep more of their earnings.

(p. 1) Partway through a panel discussion at a recent economics conference in San Francisco, Jason Furman, a former adviser to President Barack Obama, turned to Kimberly Clausing, a former member of the Biden administration and the author of a book extolling the virtues of free trade.

“Everyone in this room agrees with your book,” Mr. Furman said. “No one outside of this room agrees with your book.”

The academics and policy wonks gathered in the hotel conference room laughed, but the comment captured something real: After decades of helping to shape policy on weighty matters like taxes and health insurance, economists find that their influence is at a low ebb.

. . .

(p. 6) Mr. Trump, in his first term, had few economists in top roles, and perhaps the most prominent exception — Peter Navarro, a Harvard-trained economist who was an adviser on trade policy — held skeptical views on trade, particularly with China, that put him far outside the economic mainstream. (In a 2016 survey of academic economists, not a single respondent said putting tariffs on China to encourage domestic production would be a good idea.)

Economists who held more mainstream views had limited influence. Richard Burkhauser, a Cornell University professor who served on Mr. Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers, said he and his colleagues quickly understood that there was little point in trying to talk Mr. Trump out of imposing tariffs.

“The most forlorn economists at the C.E.A. specialized in trade,” he said. If they had tried to fight tariffs, he said, “that would have been the last meeting we were at.”

Instead, Mr. Burkhauser said, economists focused on a different question: If the administration was going to impose tariffs, how could it do them in the least painful way possible?

For the full story see:

Ben Casselman. “Economists See Influence Wane in Policy Circles.” The New York Times, SundayBusiness Section (Sun., January 12, 2025): 1 & 6.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date Jan. 10, 2024, and has the title “Economists Are in the Wilderness. Can They Find a Way Back to Influence?”)

Plenty in Science Still “Just Doesn’t Make Any Sense”

In my Openness book, I argue against those who see a future of inevitable stagnation. One argument for inevitable stagnation says that entrepreneurs build their innovations on science and we have run out of new knowledge to learn in science.

But whenever we keep our eyes open and observe more closely, or in new areas, we see what we cannot yet explain. The passages quoted below give another example. So we still have a lot to learn in science.

(Of course I also point out in the book that much entrepreneurial innovation is not tied to current advances in science–and is done by entrepreneurs who do not know, or who do not hold in high esteem, the current conclusions of mainstream scientists.)

(p. A14) On Dec. 24 [2024], NASA’s Parker Solar Probe swooped closer than it ever had before to the sun, just a few million miles above its blazing hot surface.

The team behind the mission waited nervously, trusting that the probe would survive the encounter. Then, a few minutes shy of midnight on Thursday [Dec. 2?, 2024], Parker phoned home.

. . .

. . ., there was some fear that the probe might not survive this time. Parker’s heat shield is designed so that the front of the vehicle can withstand facing the blistering heat of the sun’s outer atmosphere, which reaches millions of degrees, while the back, which contains the probe’s sensitive instruments, sits at a comfortable 85 degrees Fahrenheit.

“Literally one side is at a temperature that is unfathomable,” Joseph Westlake, the director of heliophysics at NASA, said. “And the back of it is a hot, sunny day.”

. . .

Parker’s data will . . . help scientists understand how the sun’s outer atmosphere, known as the corona, can be hundreds of times hotter than the solar surface below it.

“It’s like if you were standing next to a bonfire and you took a couple of steps back, and all of a sudden it got hotter,” Dr. Westlake said. “It just doesn’t make any sense.”

For the full story see:

Katrina Miller. “After Silence, Solar Probe Signals Earth of Survival.” The New York Times (Sat., December 28, 2024): A14.

(Note: ellipses, bracketed year, and bracketed date, added.)

(Note: the online version of the story was updated Dec. 30, 2024, and has the title “After Days of Silence, NASA’s Parker Solar Probe Phones Home.”)

My book mentioned in my initial comments is:

Diamond, Arthur M., Jr. Openness to Creative Destruction: Sustaining Innovative Dynamism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.

Medieval English Gentry Did Not Routinely Dine on Meat

In my Openness book, I argue that the distant past was not a lost Golden Age that we should pine for.

Based on novels and TV costume dramas, we suppose the rich gentry in medieval England routinely dined on meat. But bioarcheologists have analyzed the bones of over 2,000 persons for whom social class can be inferred, based on what was buried with the bones. The conclusion was that meat was an occasional luxury for both poor and rich.

This provides one more bit of evidence that, compared with the present, the past was not a Golden Age even for the rich.

Source:

Maria Cramer. “Mutton? Kings of Yore Probably Ate More Greens.” The New York Times, First Section (Sun., May 1, 2022 [sic]): 13.

(Note: the online version of the article was updated May 2, 2022 [sic], and has the title “Anglo-Saxon Kings Made Sure to Eat Their Vegetables, Study Shows.”)

The published academic paper summarized by Maria Cramer in The New York Times is:

Leggett, Sam, and Tom Lambert. “Food and Power in Early Medieval England: A Lack of (Isotopic) Enrichment.” Anglo-Saxon England 49 (2022): 155-96.

My book mentioned in my initial comments is:

Diamond, Arthur M., Jr. Openness to Creative Destruction: Sustaining Innovative Dynamism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.

Not Every Fluoride Worry Is Anti-Science Misinformation

Emily Oster is an economist who believes that ordinary citizens are not uniformly stupid and ill-informed. Maybe they even have rights. So she suggests the public health authorities stop condescending and shouting commands and start offering the public nuanced information about varying levels of certainty and risk.

(p. 4) Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said this month that the new Trump administration would recommend removing fluoride from public water supplies. The suggestion that fluoride was unsafe was immediately criticized by many public health experts as anti-science misinformation.

But there’s a real danger to painting everyone with concerns about fluoride as a conspiracy theorist. It’s not that we should remove fluoride from tap water (we shouldn’t), but fluoride is a complex topic, and glossing over that complexity — as public health experts and agencies often do — leaves people understandably skeptical.

Public health agencies typically tell people what to do and what not to do, but they don’t regularly explain why — or why people might hear something different from others. They also often fail to prioritize. In the end, advice for a range of topics is delivered with the same level of confidence and, seemingly, the same level of urgency. The problem is that when people find one piece of guidance is overstated, they may begin to distrust everything.

. . .

Deservedly or not, public health authorities lost a lot of trust, especially during the pandemic, and they have struggled to get it back. This has left an opening for others. The reaction from public health officials often seems to be to yell the same thing, only more loudly. This isn’t working.

For the full commentary see:

Emily Oster. “How to Talk About Fluoride, Vaccines and Raw Milk.” The New York Times, SundayOpinion Section (Sun., November 17, 2024): 4.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date Nov. 13, 2024, and has the title “There’s a Better Way to Talk About Fluoride, Vaccines and Raw Milk.”)

NBER Study Asserts That High-Risk Medicare Beneficiaries Are Clueless

I have looked at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) paper mentioned below, and suspect (and hope) that its key findings are wrong. I do not believe that people are always rational and well-informed. But I do believe that people have incentives to be rational and well-informed, especially on crucial issues related to their health.

The NBER paper says that given a modest increase in the price of a crucial drug (e.g., a statin), high-risk patients (e.g., with severe arteriosclerosis) will often stop taking the crucial drug, being “unaware of these risks.” I suspect that the policy conclusion that many will draw from the NBER paper is: don’t raise Medicare drug prices.

If the authors are right that high-risk Medicare beneficiaries are clueless, an alternative policy conclusion is: give the beneficiaries a clue.

(p. 7) The high cost of drugs can force some seniors to make difficult choices between paying for medications or other household expenses.

A . . . study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that when Medicare beneficiaries’ out-of-pocket drug costs jump, there is a significant drop in the number of patients who fill prescriptions and an increase in mortality.

For the full commentary see:

Mark Miller. “Steps for Coping With Medicare’s Rising Costs.” The New York Times, SundayBusiness Section (Sun., December 26, 2021 [sic]): 7.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date Dec. 22, 2021 [sic], and has the title “How to Cope With Medicare’s Rising Costs.”)

A revised version of the National Bureau of Economic Research paper mentioned above is:

Chandra, Amitabh, Evan Flack, and Ziad Obermeyer. “The Health Costs of Cost-Sharing.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper #28439, Feb. 2024.

Fraudulently Doctored Images and “Suspect Data” in Many Leading Cancer Research Papers

Charles Piller in his Doctored paints a damning picture of doctored images and suspect data rampant in the leading scientific literature on Alzheimer’s disease. Not only were leading scientists guilty of fraud, but the key institutions of scientific research (journals, universities, and government grant-making agencies) failing their oversight duty, and when outsiders stepped in to provide oversight, delayed and minimized their responses. Practicing and turning a blind eye to fraud matters, since Alzheimer’s patients are depending on this research. And researchers who do not commit fraud suffer because they appear to have worse research records than those compiled by the fraudsters. So the honest get worse academic appointments and fewer grants.

After reading Doctored I was depressed, but I at least hoped that this pathology was limited to this one (albeit an important one) area of medical research. But in the article quoted below, evidence is presented that there is substantial similar doctored images and suspect data in the field of cancer research.

A side issue in the quoted article is worth highlighting. In the absence of credible oversight from the institutions tasked with oversight, oversight is being done by competent volunteers, with the aid of A.I. These volunteers do not receive compensation for their work, and in fact are probably pay a price for it, since they alienate powerful scientists and scientific institutions. But if science is a search for truth, and truth matters for cures, they are doing a service to us all, and especially to those who suffer from major diseases such as Alsheimer’s and cancer.

On the connection with the Doctored book, it is worth noting that the article quotes Dr. Matthew Schrag, who is the most important source in Doctored. The article also quoted Elisabeth Bik, who does not have an MD like Schrag but has a PhD in microbiology, and who is another important source in Doctored.

(p. A1) The stomach cancer study was shot through with suspicious data. Identical constellations of cells were said to depict separate experiments on wholly different biological lineages. Photos of tumor-stricken mice, used to show that a drug reduced cancer growth, had been featured in two previous papers describing other treatments.

Problems with the study were severe enough that its publisher, after finding that the paper violated ethics guidelines, formally withdrew it within a few months of its publication in 2021. The study was then wiped from the internet, leaving behind a barren web page that said nothing about the reasons for its removal.

As it turned out, the flawed study was part of a pattern. Since 2008, two of its authors — Dr. Sam S. Yoon, chief of a cancer surgery division at Columbia University’s medical center, and a more junior cancer biologist — have collaborated with a rotating cast of researchers on a combined 26 articles that a British scientific sleuth has publicly flagged for containing suspect data. A medical journal retracted one of them this month after inquiries from The New York Times.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, where Dr. Yoon worked when much of the research was done, is now investigating the studies. Columbia’s medical center declined to comment on specific allegations, saying only that it reviews “any concerns about scientific integrity brought to our attention.”

Dr. Yoon, who has said his research could lead to better cancer treatments, did not answer repeated questions. Attempts to speak to the other researcher, Changhwan Yoon, an associate research scientist at Columbia, were also unsuccessful.

The allegations were aired in recent months in online comments on a science forum and in a blog post by Sholto David, an independent molecular biologist. He has ferreted out problems in a raft of high-profile cancer research, including dozens of papers at a Harvard cancer center that were subsequently referred for retractions or corrections.

From his flat in Wales, Dr. David pores over published images of cells, tumors and mice in his spare (p. A17) time and then reports slip-ups, trying to close the gap between people’s regard for academic research and the sometimes shoddier realities of the profession.

. . .

Armed with A.I.-powered detection tools, scientists and bloggers have recently exposed a growing body of such questionable research, like the faulty papers at Harvard’s Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and studies by Stanford’s president that led to his resignation last year.

But those high-profile cases were merely the tip of the iceberg, experts said. A deeper pool of unreliable research has gone unaddressed for years, shielded in part by powerful scientific publishers driven to put out huge volumes of studies while avoiding the reputational damage of retracting them publicly.

The quiet removal of the 2021 stomach cancer study from Dr. Yoon’s lab, a copy of which was reviewed by The Times, illustrates how that system of scientific publishing has helped enable faulty research, experts said. In some cases, critical medical fields have remained seeded with erroneous studies.

“The journals do the bare minimum,” said Elisabeth Bik, a microbiologist and image expert who described Dr. Yoon’s papers as showing a worrisome pattern of copied or doctored data. “There’s no oversight.”

. . .

Dr. Yoon, a stomach cancer specialist and a proponent of robotic surgery, kept climbing the academic ranks, bringing his junior researcher along with him. In September 2021, around the time the study was published, he joined Columbia, which celebrated his prolific research output in a news release. His work was financed in part by half a million dollars in federal research money that year, adding to a career haul of nearly $5 million in federal funds.

. . .

The researchers’ suspicious publications stretch back 16 years. Over time, relatively minor image copies in papers by Dr. Yoon gave way to more serious discrepancies in studies he collaborated on with Changhwan Yoon, Dr. David said. The pair, who are not related, began publishing articles together around 2013.

But neither their employers nor their publishers seemed to start investigating their work until this past fall, when Dr. David published his initial findings on For Better Science, a blog, and notified Memorial Sloan Kettering, Columbia and the journals. Memorial Sloan Kettering said it began its investigation then.

. . .

A proliferation of medical journals, they said, has helped fuel demand for ever more research articles. But those same journals, many of them operated by multibillion-dollar publishing companies, often respond slowly or do nothing at all once one of those articles is shown to contain copied data. Journals retract papers at a fraction of the rate at which they publish ones with problems.

. . .

“There are examples in this set that raise pretty serious red flags for the possibility of misconduct,” said Dr. Matthew Schrag, a Vanderbilt University neurologist who commented as part of his outside work on research integrity.

. . .

Experts said the handling of the article was symptomatic of a tendency on the part of scientific publishers to obscure reports of lapses.

“This is typical, sweeping-things-under-the-rug kind of nonsense,” said Dr. Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch, which keeps a database of 47,000-plus retracted papers. “This is not good for the scientific record, to put it mildly.”

For the full story, see:

Benjamin Mueller. “Cancer Doctor Is in Spotlight Over Bad Data.” The New York Times. (Fri., February 16, 2024): A1 & A17.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version has the date Feb. 15, 2024 [sic], and has the title “A Columbia Surgeon’s Study Was Pulled. He Kept Publishing Flawed Data.”)

Piller’s book mentioned in my initial comments is:

Piller, Charles. Doctored: Fraud, Arrogance, and Tragedy in the Quest to Cure Alzheimer’s. New York: Atria/One Signal Publishers, 2025.

If Corn Syrup Hurts Health Then Government Should Stop Subsidizing Corn Farming and Stop Quotas on Sugar Imports

Every semester for many years I would conclude my micro principles class discussing the ill effects of the U.S. government imposing quotas on the importation of sugar. I would point out that the quotas increase the price of sugar for American consumers. Since corn syrup is a substitute for sugar, the increase in the price of sugar will increase the demand for corn syrup.

To support the ill effects of corn syrup, I used to cite a commentary by Michael Waldholz:

In a speech to the International Congress on Obesity last summer, George Bray, a recognized expert on weight gain, said high fructose corn syrup is a “ticking bomb” in our diet because it is more readily converted into fat than other sugars. Unlike other sugars, fructose doesn’t trigger the release of insulin, which controls sugar consumption by telling the brain to send out a feeling of fullness. (Waldholz 2003, p. D3)

It would be interesting to check the current state of the evidence on whether Bray’s claim is true. But if so, then it provides support for Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s current initiative against corn syrup, which was discussed in a full-page article in the NYT in December 2024.

Paradoxically, the U.S. government increases the consumption of corn syrup in multiple ways. In my principles classes I pointed out the indirect effect of sugar quotas. The NYT article also points out the subsidies for corn production.

Kennedy wants to ban the use of corn syrup products in federally subsidized school lunches and ban their purchase using federal food stamps. He should also lobby his boss to end federal subsidies for corn production and end the federal quota program on sugar.

The WSJ commentary on corn syrup is:

Waldholz, Michael “Let’s Subtract ‘Added Sugar’ from Our Diets.” The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., Feb. 20, 2003): D3.

(Note: the online version of the Waldholz commentary has the same date as the print version and has the title “Let’s Ditch ‘Added Sugar’ From Our Regular Diets.”)

The NYT article on corn syrup is:

Jonathan Weisman. “Kennedy’s Crusade Comes to Trump Country.” The New York Times (Weds., December 11, 2024): A11.

(Note: the online version of the NYT article has the date Dec. 10, 2024, and has the title “Kennedy’s War on Corn Syrup Brings a Health Crusade to Trump Country.”)