A Science Historian Tackles Ghostwriting In Scientific Papers - Science Friday Recap

Podcast: Science Friday

Published: 2026-01-29

Duration: 20 minutes

Guests: Naomi Oreskes

Summary

Naomi Oreskes, a science historian, discusses the impact of ghostwriting in scientific papers, emphasizing how it undermines public trust in science.

What Happened

Naomi Oreskes, a professor of the history of science at Harvard University, joins Flora Lichtman to examine the current state of skepticism in science. Oreskes explains that science is often attacked when it threatens powerful interests or cherished beliefs, citing examples like evolutionary theory and acid rain. She highlights how the politicization of science is not new but has intensified with deliberate efforts to undermine scientific findings that challenge economic interests, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The discussion moves to the pervasive issue of ghostwriting in scientific papers, where Oreskes reveals how this practice has significantly impacted public trust in science. She details a specific case involving the weed killer glyphosate, where a fraudulent paper claimed it was safe, affecting regulatory decisions and public perception.

Oreskes emphasizes the importance of public funding for science to ensure its integrity, arguing that reliance on corporate-funded research often leads to biased outcomes. She notes that public trust in science remains relatively high, but the undermining of scientific institutions by political ideologues poses significant challenges.

The episode covers how industries have historically organized to fight scientific evidence that threatens their profits, leading to a generalized anti-science stance. Oreskes argues that this strategy aims to protect corporate interests and resist government regulation.

Lichtman and Oreskes explore the implications of ghostwriting, particularly in pharmaceuticals, where it is suspected that a significant portion of research papers might be ghostwritten. This creates confusion among the public and challenges in distinguishing trustworthy science from fraudulent studies.

Oreskes calls for greater public funding of scientific research to prevent the corruption of science by private interests. She points out that bipartisan efforts in Congress have resisted cuts to scientific funding, acknowledging the substantial benefits that science brings to society.

Key Insights

• Ghostwriting in scientific papers has been linked to significant public mistrust, as seen in a case where a fraudulent study on the weed killer glyphosate falsely claimed it was safe, influencing regulatory decisions.
• Public funding for scientific research is advocated as a means to maintain integrity, as corporate-funded research often results in biased outcomes that favor economic interests over public welfare.
• Industries have historically organized to counteract scientific evidence that threatens their profits, leading to a broader anti-science stance that aims to resist government regulation.
• In the pharmaceutical industry, a substantial portion of research papers are suspected to be ghostwritten, complicating public understanding and trust in scientific findings.