Facilitating whistle blowing in science: Why we need a culture of “science audits” in all facets of scientific endeavour

 

"It's not unpatriotic to denounce an injustice committed on our behalf, perhaps it's the most patriotic thing we can do." — E.A. Bucchianeri

In previous years we had published several papers on journal ranking and classification, pre-publication reviews, and post-publication reviews, all in the interests of better and high-quality science. In this article, we propose that a formal whistle-blowing mechanism must be incorporated in science, and preferably institutionalized.  This must be viewed in the context of the rising threat of pseudo-science, and the deteriorating quality of science both in the developing and western world.  These people must act as watch dogs and conscience keepers for scientific activity, just as there are other conscience keepers for witches for other religions and ideologies. We would actually recommend that a dedicated group of researchers commit themselves to the cause, in addition to their discharge of other scientific duties, roles and responsibilities. This may of course be subject to time, cost, and other practical constraints.  We begin this paper by providing not only definitions, but also characteristics and attributes of bona fide science and pseudoscience along with some suitable examples culled from diverse fields and contexts. We also discuss and debate good science, bad science and proto science briefly with additional pertinent examples. We will also then proceed to show that while miracle busters, myth busters and superstition busters are prevalent and widespread in many parts of the world, whistle blowing in the context of bad or pseudo science is still a nascent and underdeveloped field, which needs development and reinforcement. We also say this because it is highly lamentable that dubious science sometimes gets mainstreamed without an appropriate gate keeping process to the detriment of science, and eventually societies and education systems around the world. We quote a couple of other scientists and researchers to bolster our case, and conclude that this activity and endeavour is pretty much essential to foster and nurture ideology-free and high-quality science as well, and foster greater ethics and transparency throughout the knowledge production lifecycle. This paper therefore, forms an essential aspect and component of our ongoing globalization movement, particularly for various fields and subfields of the social sciences.    

Science and pseudoscience

Science is represented by a systematic and an honest process of knowledge creation, and the term also often refers to a systematic and consistent body of knowledge gained regarding various observable phenomena. Science primarily makes use of facts, evidence, and rigorous testing to understand the means by which natural, physical, and in some cases, the social worlds function and operate. Pseudoscience on the other hand, chiefly consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be scientific an bona fide but are in fact incompatible and inconsistent with the scientific method and the rigorous processes associated with scientific discovery. Pseudoscience often makes pompous and dubious claims which are also unfalsifiable, thereby negating the fundamentals of good and acceptable sciences. Such claims also do not rely or rest on genuine and incontestable data and rigourous testing processes but instead rely heavily on hearsay and anecdotal evidence. Pseudoscientific claims are often never peer-reviewed, and are innately and inherently non self-correcting. Pseudoscientific claims chase popularity among a scientifically naïve and non-erudite audience, with the sole objective of climbing the popularity charts.  They are also designed to provide pecuniary benefits to the proponent, and rely heavily on sensationalism. As they say “A lie travels half way around the world when the truth is still putting on its shoes. The term "pseudoscience" evolved over time. However, the earliest attested usage of the term dates back to 1796 when it meant a "pretended or mistaken science". James Pettit Andrews, an English historian and antiquarian, used the term in the first volume of his historical work, “History of Great Britain, from the Death of Henry VIII to the Accession of James VI of Scotland”, which was published in 1796, and his intention was primarily to critique alchemy. Francois Magendie, an eminent French psychologist further used the term in 1843, when he directly critiqued phrenology which has now been totally discredited, and is considered to a pseudoscience beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Karl Popper also popularized the term “pseudoscience” in a modern context and setting and introduced the all-important concept of falsifiability. According to him, a true science must be falsifiable, and must therefore, always be open to criticism.

In addition, astrology, palmistry, and numerology are widely discredited, and the jury is still out whether the basics of homeopathy can be construed as valid. Cryptozoology, which is the search for creatures from mythical folklore, such as Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster, is also considered to be dubious science. We also then have the concept of protoscience, and this term is used to describe a field of inquiry that has not yet gained mainstream scientific acceptance. For example, alchemy later morphed into chemistry in a way, but alchemy is in many ways only a proto science.  Over a period of time, new and novel claims do get mainstreamed however, and some prime examples include Alfred Wegener’s continental drift theory, and the germ theory which was pioneered by Girolamo Fracastoro, Ignaz Semmelweis, and Joseph Liste, but was proven by Louis Pasteur. Other claims made in fields such as phrenology, reflexology, Lysenkoism, and iridology have remained within the realm of pseudoscience, however. We must also distinguish between good science an bad science, as the latter is not entirely bona fide, and often leads to distorted results. The latter often relies heavily on confirmation bias, cherry picks data, resorts to deliberate and intentional obfuscation of inconvenient data, etc. some dubious sciences such as Eugenics – pioneered by Sir Francis Galton and others have been outright dangerous to humanity as they have directly and indirectly promoted racism, and trampled upon human rights. Other theories such as Atlantis (found in Plato’s writings) have been totally discredited, and the theory of Lemuria which emerged as a bona fide science, is now discredited as well.

Other examples of bogus science have included “The chariots of the Gods” advanced in 1968 by Swiss author Erich von Daniken. This book popularized the claim that extraterrestrial beings visited earth in early antiquity and were worshiped by earthlings. The Orion constellation theory championed by Robert Bauval since 1989, also has many logical consistencies, and is highly suspect at best. Evidence to prove that Jesus lived in India either during his lost years or after his crucifixion are flimsy at best, and such theories have been criticized by Max Muller and others, though they were initially promoted by Nicolas Notovitch and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and later by Holger Kersten. Other contemporary pseudoscience writers have included Graham Hancock known for his fantastic claims in the realm of pseudo archaeology, Zecharia Sitchin, another pseudo archaeology writer, and the John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris duo whose work led to the “Young earth creationism” movement. The intelligent design movement was launched by Phillip E. Johnson, Michael Behe and others, but their claims do not comply with methodological naturalism.  The New Age Movement took off in the 1970’s and 1980’s, though some of its core claims are considered to be pseudoscientific. More recent movements such as postmodernism, and post-processual archaeology have also emphasized subjectivity and subjective interpretation over objectivity, and such schools of thought may compromise severely with objectivity.

In some cases, there have been cases of outright scientific fraud as exemplified by the Piltdown man hoax and the Schon scandal. More recently Jason Arday of Cambridge University committed suicide, after alleged plagiarism and malfeasance accusations came to light. Hindutva writers have often championed pseudoscience too, and so have some Dravidian nationalist writers. Both camps have made often outrageous and untenable claims that were rejected by the scientific community.  There are ideologies in science too, and the concept was described in detail by Georges Canguilhem and others. This often leads to echo chambers and intellectual cabals. Science also progresses somewhat slowly due to careerism, and resistance to new ideas, and this is often known as the Planck’s principle. This is particularly true when paradigm shifts are involved. While some amount of careerism, personal, cultural and subjective ideological bias is inevitable, we must learn to draw the line somewhere. Society must not suffer due to careerism, and neither must the long-term and healthy progress of science. We must gradually attempt to move towards a post-ideology world in science, mo matter how long it takes. We have had pseudo science busters too and examples have included Martin Gardner, Ben Goldacre, James Randi, and others. The latter mostly functioned as a miracle buster. In India, Basava Premanand, Abraham Kovvur, H Narasimhaiah and others have done good work too. The rationalist movement has been strong in India, and pioneers have included Muddu Narasimham Naidu, Saraswati Gora, Innaiah Narisetti, Babu Gogineni, and others.  

However, we believe that scientific method and the philosophy of science themselves need a radical overhaul – we have dedicated and committed over thirty papers to scientific method and the philosophy of science. Objectivity and society focused science must be baked into scientific method as far as possible, and science communication must be stepped up to. Scientific method must be taught to students right from a young age, along with epistemology and the philosophy of science, and science must not be reduced to a mere rote memorization of facts, but must be viewed as a process by means of which new conclusions are reached . Students must be taught how to think, and not only what to think.  At present, we are still very weak in this department, and students cannot even distinguish between strong evidence and weak evidence. People must be taught to expose conspiracy theories which are often based on, or linked to persecution complexes. Scientific method itself we believe must improve, and future researchers must set the direction in this context. All these are so necessary, to promote a scientific temper, a concept that was famously proposed by the late Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. We also believe we need cross cultural approaches and region and context specific approaches to understanding how people think and building a scientific temper. We must try to understand why people believe what they do. That is why we need emic perspectives driven by cross-cultural research design, and  other valid and bonafide social science research techniques. We also need to adopt cultural frames of reference and cross-cultural frames of reference. We had written about all these concepts extensively in the past. We believe that the pseudoscience problem must be approached from a sociological and structural angle, shifting the focus from simply mocking fringe beliefs to examining why mainstream science fails to prevent them.

We have also always argued that pseudoscience flourishes primarily because mainstream science has often left massive gaps due to non interdisciplinary approaches and over-the-top approaches, has often suffered from ideological bias, and has failed to maintain public trust in the process. This observation, we believe holds good particularly for the developing world, though it is not necessarily limited to it In a 2025 paper entitled “Reigniting public trust and public confidence in science: Why high quality science alone will restore trust in science and wipe out pseudoscience”, we had even advanced a core premise, namely: “One kind of bias legitimizes every other kind of bias”. This essentially asserts that if mainstream scholarship becomes ideological, rigid, or epistemologically incomplete, it triggers a dangerous public counter-reaction. When the man in the street observes and realizes that mainstream academic frameworks are flawed, biased, or Eurocentric, (as they more often are for the social sciences) he begins to lose faith in established scientific institutions, and in scientific scholarship in general. This loss of institutional trust creates an intellectual vacuum, which fringe groups with vested interests eagerly and enthusiastically exploit, driving a dangerous resurrection of pseudoscientific movements of different kinds. [1]

We will therefore consistently maintain the idea that the only successful and long lasting way to wipe out pseudoscience is not through censorship, but by producing mainstream science that is of a fundamentally higher quality. Also, when mainstream research models, frameworks or paradigms, dogmatically adhere on unproven myths, they more or less mirror the pseudosciences they claim or seek to oppose. In other words, ideology is the gateway to pseudoscience. In other words, when scientists design and conduct experiments in order to mainstream a preconceived ideological narrative rather than discover the absolute truth, they are no longer practicing real or fully objective or socially responsible science. We therefore fiercely champion and promote “Ideology-Free Science", arguing that researchers must remain strictly objective, make use of precise and objective measurements, and rely on data driven conclusions. Of course, we need rigorous scholarship, but rigorous does not necessarily equate to objective if it is one sided. Scholarship therefore needs to be both rigorous and objective. [2] [3]

We have also argued for the need to overhaul educational systems because current education systems are woefully inadequate in fostering critical thinking, and inculcating a scientific temper. In order to construct a strong and fortified defense against pseudoscience, we have advocates for educational reforms, and have dedicated several papers to this cause. The ability to distinguish good and bona fide science from pseudoscience must be taught to children at the appropriate academic level, so that pseudoscientific constructs are eventually edged out. If scientists practice intellectual elitism and talk down to everyday people or insult their traditional cultures of points of view rashly or inappropriately, they will alienate the general public and greatly delay the process of social change. Instead, science must not only  of fundamentally and intrinsically high quality, but must also be globalized (especially for the social sciences) and cross-cultural enough to win public trust, and public hearts and minds. Mainstream, trained scientists must hold objectivity and commitment to the truth closer to their heart than untrained people. This is because mainstream scientists claim to be the custodians of truth and knowledge. In this context and connection, it can be said, “A man in the street can be forgiven, but a Harvard university professor cannot”.  Ideologically driven historians must also take share of the blame, for example. Exaggerating the past or suppressing the past are two cardinal sins practiced by historians at the opposite ends of the ideological spectrum.  Scientific audits must be carried out from time to time by well-versed and competent professionals, an whistle blowing is also necessary. According to Edward Snowden, who exposed several high-profile scams, a whistleblower may be defined as someone whose conscience goads them to expose or act against an institution that has violated its duty to the public. In addition, Martha C. Nussbaum, an eminent American philosopher, warns that a "go along to get along" approach and attitude that discourages proactive whistle blowing can eventually lead to systemic institutional failure. Dedicated and committed individuals must act as watch dogs and conscience keepers for scientific activity, just as there are other conscience keepers for witches in Christianity and untouchability in Hinduism. We would actually recommend that a dedicated group of researchers commit themselves to the cause, in addition to their discharge of other scientific duties, roles and responsibilities, as may be required. This can be done as a part of continuous post-publication reviews of papers, or otherwise. [4]

However, good and socially appropriate science is of paramount importance. As Wernher Von Braun once said, “Science itself is neither good nor evil. Its power depends on the hands that wield it. A discovery can heal millions, or cause widespread destruction. The real question isn’t therefore, what science can do, but what humanity chooses to do with it.”  This statement must be viewed in light of the dangerous culture of pseudoscience that is brewing in many different parts of the world, including both the developing world and the western world. Let us conclude with a quote by Yuval Noah Harari, the eminent Israeli researcher and scientist, “The truth is almost always complicated, difficult to comprehend or understand, not very flattering, and on some occasions even painful. However, arriving at the truth is a central component of human an societal progress, and for arriving at the truth, a great deal of time, energy, expertise, and commitment are required, including fact checking and data validation, data corroboration, and complex investigations. On the other hand falsehoods and lies can come very cheaply, and propagate very easily because can say whatever they want as long as it is emotionally very appealing.  There is also a very dangerous and very likely possibility that falsehoods will triumph unless we make a concerted effort to discover and promote the truth. This naturally requires institution building as well, and almost nothing is possible without it.” [5] [6]   [7]

---

[1] Wootton, David. The Invention of Science: A New History of the Scientific Revolution (Penguin, 2015). p.136

[2] Reigniting public trust and public confidence in science: Why high quality science alone will restore trust in science and wipe out pseudoscience, Sujay Rao Mandavilli, SSRN, 2025  

[3] Bowler, Peter J.; Morus, Iwan Rhys (2020). "The scientific revolution". Making Modern Science (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 25–57

[4] Löwe, Benedikt (2002). "The Formal Sciences: Their Scope, Their Foundations, and Their Unity". Synthese. 133 (1/2): 5–11

[5] Mainstreaming continuous post-publication review in science: Yet another milestone towards high-quality science, Sujay Rao Mandavilli, SSRN, 2025

[6] Laying the Foundations for Ethical, Unbiased and Substantive Reviewing of Research Work: Providing the Theoretical Foundation for Superior Science

[7] Cataloguing The Sacred Duties of a Researcher Towards Science, Society and the Education System: A Necessary Adjunct for Progress in the Twenty-First Century and beyond