I recently wrote a long post to give my thoughts on government conspiracy theories (https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10222555561468619&id=1558595375). In this one, I will point out why, as a scientist, I laugh at the idea that of scientific conspiracy theories!
First, let me point out that by definition “conspiracy” means a group effort. I’ll acknowledge that individuals can do bad things, small groups (like within a single lab) may occasionally try to get away with something (like false data), and that technology corporations may short-cut science and try to get away with something. But when it comes to real “group” efforts (faking the moon landing, inserting nano-chips into vaccines, falsifying evolution, chem-trails, etc.), well, it just isn’t going to happen folks!
At a fundamental level, you need to have a way to control the narrative in order to get away with a conspiracy. Such control requires a strong system of authority. Science has no such system. First, you have to understand how science functions socially. Unlike the military where leaders can minimize knowledge percolating down the ranks, the scientific community has stunningly little hierarchy.
What little ‘pecking order’ there is, has very few levels. There may be some order based on M.S. degree versus Ph.D., but the exceptions are innumerable and one of the most respected scientists in my narrow field of lichenology has only a bachelor’s degree… and in a non-scientific field! Number of publications, and the journals they are published in, may be the best measure of scientific status, but still has little to do with hierarchy and I’ll return to this later.
Otherwise, the only hierarchy is in the job rankings within the various institutions that scientists work in, which varies so much from one place to another. For universities, there is a pattern that roughly goes from Associate Professor to Tenure-Track Professor to Tenured Professor. But that does not result in a hierarchy of authority that could control information. Rather, there is a competitiveness: outperforming the level above you is a great way to move up. Scientists in government, and those in industry, have a simple hierarchy based mainly on time: how much experience they have accumulated. So there could be some pressure from above to those working below.
But here is the clincher: there is NO governing structure of science across these!
If someone feels pressure, they can move to a different job. Frankly, if they can expose something while doing so, they will probably make a better name for themselves and end up in a better spot.
So back to publications… publishing papers in scientific journals is the way that science documents new knowledge moves forward (see my post on defining science), which is why it has become somewhat of a measure for scientists. Most journals are managed by scientific societies – of which there are hundreds and there is no overarching structure between them. Scientists can submit papers to the journal of their choosing, they are not confined to publishing within a particular society’s journal. The biggest challenges in getting something published is about (1) solid scientific methods and (2) how important the new information is. Now, demonstrating that someone else was wrong is pretty important new information (as long as the methods were good). There is little advantage to keeping a secret in science; rather there is a big advantage in exposing information. Attempt a “conspiracy” in science and your co-conspirators will gleefully throw you under the bus while getting a great publication out of it!
Furthermore, the judges of this are “peer reviewers”, who are other scientists in the same field, but not directly connected with the study presented in the paper. These reviews are typically anonymous. In other words, the way to gain status in science is to *publish* (not hide) important information, which is judged by anonymous other scientists with similar expertise. This is the very antithesis of the information control required for a “scientific conspiracy”.