It actually sounds like we have a market mechanism for promoting the discovery of scientific fraud. From the opening sentence of the Science article on Schrag:
In August 2021, Matthew Schrag, a neuroscientist and physician at Vanderbilt University, got a call that would plunge him into a maelstrom of possible scientific misconduct. A colleague wanted to connect him with an attorney investigating an experimental drug for Alzheimer’s disease called Simufilam. The drug’s developer, Cassava Sciences, claimed it improved cognition, partly by repairing a protein that can block sticky brain deposits of the protein amyloid beta (Aβ), a hallmark of Alzheimer’s. The attorney’s clients—two prominent neuroscientists who are also short sellers who profit if the company’s stock falls—believed some research related to Simufilam may have been “fraudulent,” according to a petition later filed on their behalf with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
The problem here is that this mechanism only works once there’s a publicly traded company with a product based on the suspect research to short sell.
Maybe what’s needed is a prediction market for paper retractions. Examples:
It actually sounds like we have a market mechanism for promoting the discovery of scientific fraud. From the opening sentence of the Science article on Schrag:
The problem here is that this mechanism only works once there’s a publicly traded company with a product based on the suspect research to short sell.
Maybe what’s needed is a prediction market for paper retractions. Examples:
Will Ryan Enos Have a Paper Retracted in 2022?
Will Dan Ariely Have a Paper Retracted in 2022?