There are a lot of issues flying around that are being inappropriately mixed up for all sorts of political purposes.
The Begley 'study' is impossible to assess, because they didn't report what the studies were, nor any of their methods, or anything. It's BS and hearsay, not science. Moreover, according to the Begley article itself, "The term 'non-reproduced' was assigned on the basis of findings not being sufficiently robust to drive a drug-development programme."
Nobody said that the purpose of every single scientific paper was to enable Amgen to go start a drug-development program.
There are many problems with the science funding situation, the glamour pub game, excess hype, funding getting sucked up by mega-projects, lack of open-access, inability to publish negative results, etc, etc, etc, but in general, it is not true that scientists are making up sexy results to get them into Nature and Science.
The Begley 'study' is impossible to assess, because they didn't report what the studies were, nor any of their methods, or anything. It's BS and hearsay, not science. Moreover, according to the Begley article itself, "The term 'non-reproduced' was assigned on the basis of findings not being sufficiently robust to drive a drug-development programme."
Nobody said that the purpose of every single scientific paper was to enable Amgen to go start a drug-development program.
There are many problems with the science funding situation, the glamour pub game, excess hype, funding getting sucked up by mega-projects, lack of open-access, inability to publish negative results, etc, etc, etc, but in general, it is not true that scientists are making up sexy results to get them into Nature and Science.