Each year, biomedical scientists pump out about 1 million new papers, but a troubling truth hides in plain sight: much of this work can’t be replicated. Far from a small glitch, this is a colossal crisis—squandering billions, eroding faith in science, and stalling genuine breakthroughs. In an interview with Chemical & Engineering News, pharmacologist Csaba Szabo, a professor at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, confronts this chaos head-on, previewing his recently published book, Unreliable. His verdict? The scientific system is fractured beyond repair, and Band-Aid fixes won’t cut it. Nothing short of a revolution will do.

Szabo’s journey into this quagmire began casually—over beers with colleagues in New York during a sabbatical. The question that kept surfacing was simple yet haunting: “Why is it that nobody can reproduce anybody else’s findings?” It’s a problem scientists have grumbled about for years, but Szabo decided to do something about it. The result is Unreliable, a deep dive into the causes of irreproducibility—ranging from hypercompetition and sloppy errors to statistical trickery and outright fraud. His conclusions are as sobering as they are provocative.

The Scale of the Problem

Szabo’s findings are jaw-dropping. After sifting through the global scientific literature—not just the polished papers on PubMed, but everything published anywhere—he estimates that 90% of it fails the reproducibility test. Even worse, he believes 20-30% is entirely fabricated. “I didn’t expect the numbers to be that high going in,” he admits. “It’s just absurd.” The financial toll is staggering. Paper mills—fraudulent outfits that churn out fake research for profit—rake in billions annually. This isn’t a cottage industry; it’s a industrial-scale scam.

What’s more shocking is who’s left to clean up the mess. It’s not the grant agencies, universities, journals, or governments stepping up. Instead, it’s a ragtag crew of private investigators—working unpaid, late into the night, while dodging lawsuits from the very fraudsters they’re exposing. “What kind of a system is this?” Szabo asks. It’s a fair question.

No Quick Fixes

Szabo doesn’t mince words: the half-measures tried so far—workshops, checklists, and the like—have flopped. “The things that we’ve tried are not working,” he says. “I’m trying to suggest something different.” His fix? A top-to-bottom overhaul of how science is taught, funded, and published. It’s an ecosystem, he argues, and you can’t fix one part without tackling the whole.

On education, Szabo proposes splitting scientific training into two tracks: one for discovery and another for integrity. The latter would train a new breed of professionals in experimental design, statistical rigor, data management, and independent review—essentially, watchdogs embedded in the system. It’s a bold idea, but it could professionalize the policing of science.

For funding, he takes aim at the current grant lottery, where scientists spend endless hours writing proposals, only for the same big institutions to pocket the cash year after year. His radical suggestion: give institutions lump sums tied to strict reproducibility and integrity benchmarks. Let them figure out how to spend it. The catch? It demands visionary leadership—something in short supply. Still, it could free researchers from grant-writing drudgery and focus them on actual science.

On the publication front, Szabo wants top journals to demand replication supplements—independent labs verifying findings before papers go to print. It’s a practical step that could boost confidence in high-profile claims. But he doesn’t stop there. He also floats shrinking the scientific workforce and installing cameras and keystroke monitors in labs. “There are cameras in cockpits and behind the barista at Starbucks,” he notes. With so much money—and ultimately human lives—at stake, why should labs be exempt?

Controversy and Hope

These ideas won’t go down easy. Shrinking the workforce and adding surveillance will rile plenty of researchers. Szabo knows that. “I’m not saying that my ideas are brilliant,” he says. “I’d love to see more out-of-the-box ideas.” He’s throwing darts at the board, hoping to spark a broader debate.

One glimmer of hope comes from an unexpected corner: Jay Bhattacharya, Stanford professor and President Trump’s pick to lead the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Bhattacharya has publicly backed more funding for replication studies—a move Szabo cheers. “Amen to that tweet,” he says.

If Bhattacharya takes the helm, he could wield the NIH’s clout to push reform. But Szabo remains cautious. Recent NIH moves—like halting meetings and purchases—feel more punitive than progressive. Real change, he insists, must come from the top.

I don’t know Jay, but if he gets the job, I don’t think he wants to go down in history as the person who destroyed American biomedical science. He wants to go down in history as the person who reformed American biomedical science. Maybe I am still naive and hope for too much from our politicians or governments, but this reform has to come from the top, from whoever holds and controls the money. The American system, and the NIH in particular, has a lot of influence. They have more power than even they perhaps realize, if they really wanted to do something.

https://cen.acs.org/policy/publishing/nobody-reproduce-anybody-elses-findings/103/web/2025/02?sc=250305_news_eng_cennews_cen_Member

Dark Humor, Stark Truth

Szabo punctuates Unreliable with biting cartoons that cut deeper than his prose. His favorite? A recruitment committee choosing between a plagiarist, a cheat, and a harasser—only to pick the one with the most grant money.

I think one of the most offensive ones is the scientists at the “publication workshop” [four scientists in a restaurant, ordering up a paper on herbal nanoparticles in cancer cells for publication in a journal with good impact factor]. Another one is of a recruitment committee looking at three candidates for a job. One is a plagiarist, one is a cheat, and the third is a sexual harasser, and they decide to go with the one with the most grant money. But it’s not a joke—I have seen this kind of thing.

https://cen.acs.org/policy/publishing/nobody-reproduce-anybody-elses-findings/103/web/2025/02?sc=250305_news_eng_cennews_cen_Member

In the end, Szabo’s message is clear: science is drowning in waste and fakery, and it’s time to stop pretending otherwise. His solutions may not be perfect, but they’re a starting point. If we want science we can trust, we’ll need to rethink everything—from the classroom to the lab bench to the journal page. The clock’s ticking.

Unreliable by Csaba Szabo hit the shelves this month. It’s a book no one wanted to write—but one we all need to read.

H/T Michael E M (no, not Mann)