[mwt]

It's pretty disrespectful to signal (without evidence or elaboration) that researchers are not credible (or worse, broadly lying) in order to keep their research grants flowing. A hypothesis that turns out to be wrong is something both industry and government are obviously not going to invest further in. The people working in the field have skills to transfer to other departments and projects; these aren't the sort of scientists and engineers that are out of ideas or work to do.

It's also plenty obvious that there is no single, monolithic "current research direction" or even that this researcher's work was of fundamental impact when it was published - not to mention the number of people that were highly skeptical from the beginning.

[lamontcg]

Based on the way that string theory keeps on going like a zombie in physics, I don't think its disrespectful at all to consider allegations that are pretty much indistinguishable from those. Although I think that heavily entrenched groupthink and biases are all that is required. I don't think they're consciously think that "I need to lie in order to keep the research grants flowing" but its instead that old adage that "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it". To an external observer those are largely indistinguishable and have the same effect, but in the latter case the person has convinced themselves of the lie or the half-truth via financially inclined self-deception.

[mwt]

I think there is truth to the general principle you refer to, but I don't think it accurately describes what I saw skimming experts' comments in the linked thread. I'm an outsider to medical research but have experience in other parts of STEM research at universities. Here I saw a plenty of nuance, documentation of historical skepticism, concern over broad perception, and plenty disagreement over technical points. Far from a unified kool-aid drinker sort of situation. And I think there has been plenty of changes of opinions in the Alzheimer's field in recent years given the number of failed drugs - which goes against the idea that these scientists are following their career over the evidence.

[patrick451]

It's not disrespectful to point out conflicts of interest. Recusing yourself is standard practice for good reason.

[mwt]

Harboring skepticism of the work people did with a seemingly fraudulent researcher is a good idea. Dismissing everybody in a field whether or not their work is fraudulent is disrespectful approach (not to mention useless).

[nostrebored]

Given everything we know about how research funding has been captured and shaky ethics in particular domains, skepticism is warranted, not disrespectful.

[mwt]

I'm not asking for people to turn off skepticism or blindly trust researchers. It's not disrespectful to be skeptical.

What is disrespectful is not bothering to read what people have to say before dismissing them as liars who are too vested in "the current research direction" and/or money for their perspectives to matter. It only takes reading a few comments to see that's not happening - for starters, people were skeptical of this group's work for a while now.

[User23]

Also, “believe science” is the exact opposite of the scientific method.

[plutonorm]

lol

[tptacek]

My feeling is that the only reason HN doesn't have a guideline rule forbidding cites to "Upton's Law" is that there isn't space for it. It's tired, snarky, provides no insight, and never takes the conversation in any interesting direction.

The comment you're replying to observes that a bunch of researchers say that the fraudulent paper simply isn't that important in the field. You can contest that claim! Maybe they're totally wrong! But you can't do so with Upton Sinclair, because Upton knows nothing at all about how Alzheimers research works, and when you deploy that quote, you give the strong impression that you don't either.