In 1934 Karl Popper published The Logic of Scientific Discovery, wherein he separates science from non-science (pseudoscience) by use of falsification; if you can’t prove something false, then you can’t really prove it to be true. There is a lot of risk in his process as one is putting a hypothesis on the line for not only full acceptance, but also complete rejection - there is no purgatory. It’s a lot more rigorous than the US judicial system. Under Popper’s definition we have a pseudo-judicial system, as one does not necessarily need to prove innocence, but simply provide reasonable doubt to thwart a conviction.
Science today has been anthropomorphized, and objective hypotheses (if they in fact exist) are viewed as an extension of their creator's intellect and not a standalone, falsifiable explanation for an observed phenomenon. It’s common to hear the word “sexy” used in a research setting, which in itself is incredibly worrisome as if somehow an experiment or an instrument could induce such a feeling in a person - maybe it’s time to get outside.
But the deeper problem is the ego often associated with the occupation; for years scientists have been in a highly competitive landscape, trying to outwit their peers to obtain positions and secure funding. There are often hundreds of applicants for each posted position and only 20% of National Institutes of Health grant applications are funded each year. Not only is it tough to get the gig, but also to keep it afloat.
Scientists were undoubtedly told how smart they are on a daily basis throughout childhood. Parents and teachers alike fawned over every “creative” idea the student expressed. Therefore it should come as no surprise that the education system's fingerprints are all over the issue of corruption in science. Ask any student what is a hypothesis and the knee-jerk reflex you will hear is “an educated guess”. Most students (and some scientists) see laboratories as a place where you mix some stuff together and see what happens - “look at what the data has to say”. Sure, uneducated, unguided exploration can be fruitful, but by and large, it is a waste of time and resources. Deliberate questioning supported by quantitative metrics, with appropriate statistical analysis is an excruciating endeavor. It’s a lot easier to chase an errant thought without first doing the background work.
A hypothesis is a falsifiable explanation of an observed phenomenon. Not as palatable to a 5th grader as an educated guess, which then begs the question, is “science” an appropriate subject for school-aged children, and if so, when do they begin to have the ability to reason with falsifiable experiments? Science fairs will perpetually erupt in colored baking soda-vinegar volcanoes, but is that really teaching science? At best it is demonstrating a chemical reaction, but certainly not engaging in an endeavor to elucidate some truth. Students as early as kindergarteners are trained in “critical thinking”. They may not be completely reasonable, but they can certainly understand reasoning?
Students are trained to undergo the process of self validation, or confirmation bias, where they create an experiment to which they already know the answer. Or perform research that may showcase access and privilege more so than anything else. Take for example Jack Andraka, the winner of the 2012 International Science and Engineering Fair. Could a 15 year-old produce a biotechnology breakthrough on his own while not even being old enough to drive? Headlines of this nature not only undermine the arduous academic process that it takes to get to a point of performing this type of work, but also inflates the egos of young minds already bursting at the seams from a life of participation trophies.
Science today is a different beast than ever before. The speed of science has increased exponentially; in decades prior, one would have to spend countless hours in the library, pulling journals, reading articles, tracking down citations through interlibrary loan. Today, researchers sit at the helm of high speed computers with dual widescreen monitors, accessing pdfs of articles from all journals with a single mouse click, and linking them into citation manager software. Research is performed at a blistering pace - perhaps so fast that one loses the ability to see that the center line is dotted and not a continuous stripe. The full speed ahead mentality leaves little room for attention to be paid on the quality of publications referenced or the quality of work produced. Waiting weeks or months for reagents to arrive, or for equipment to be fabricated, left time to carefully plan and revise experiments. Today, overnight shipping and 3D printing have made the scientific glass blower an endangered occupation.
Retractions and academic fraud are on the rise, but few scientists show any real concern for this phenomenon, beyond a common acknowledgement of its existence. The most frightening aspect being that all of these publications went through the rigorous peer-review process, which then begs the question are scientists really capable of evaluating science? The scientific literature base has essentially become a house of cards, layer upon layer of references to works that may or may not be durable, but no one is stopping to shore up the foundation so long as the funds continue to flow. Don't rock the boat.
In “industry” an outside consultant would be hired to perform an in depth analysis of production, to determine the quality of the product and provide an unbiased report on the status of the operation. Consultants are typically not welcomed with open arms as they may find redundancies. However, when free market competition threatens the operations existence, managers are forced to streamline and improve performance. No such service exists in the academic research world since there is no customer to satisfy. The government will perpetually provide funding to research institutions because the last thing they would want to be called is anti-science.
Those often labeled as anti-science may actually be the closest thing to “real” scientists under Popper’s definition. Conspiracy theorists seek to prove something false. The moon landing hoax, 9/11 was an inside job, et cetera, et cetera. Conspiracy theorists compulsively apply falsification and in doing so force more truth to the surface than simply taking things at face value - annoyingly smart for uneducated, slack-jawed, nut-jobs. They provide a yin to the yang. Their presence, or any proxy of it, is completely absent from the academic research world, allowing billions of tax dollars to flow to questionable scientists, whose work is then transformed into headlines that may ultimately shape public opinion, but don’t question it, because you’d be labeled as a denier.