Sep 10, 2026 09:26 PM
When scientists become commercial influencers
https://www.acsh.org/news/2026/09/08/whe...cers-50324
EXCERPT: In recent years, trash science has proliferated. Various groups attempt to monitor fraudulent work that escapes peer-review censors, including Retraction Watch, under the aegis of The Center for Scientific Integrity. To date, the Retraction Watch Database contains over 66,000 entries of retracted articles from across the scientific literature.
When scientists leave the scientific arena for the commercial arena, using the prestige of peer-reviewed research to influence consumers about products, they begin to resemble those pesky influencers — and the traditional protections afforded to scientific speech don’t seem relevant. While there are legal protections to protect the public from misleading commercial claims, these protections seem inadequate in this situation, and influencers who enjoy the halo of scientific status have escaped inquiry, putting the public at risk.
Peer-reviewed literature enjoys special status in the law, as it often signifies scientific validity and evidentiary admissibility. As litigation involving science has increased, the many scientific “guns for hire” have conscripted scientific publications to publicize their litigation-driven positions. To be sure, the law doesn’t favor litigation-driven research.
That hasn’t stopped paid experts from using the scientific press as a podium for their work, later referenced in court to legitimize their personal (or paid) conclusions. As long as the research, at least superficially, mimics the scientific method, this has been allowed, and attempts by defendants to penalize these researchers for work disparaging their products on the grounds of slander or defamation have failed. (MORE - details)
https://www.acsh.org/news/2026/09/08/whe...cers-50324
EXCERPT: In recent years, trash science has proliferated. Various groups attempt to monitor fraudulent work that escapes peer-review censors, including Retraction Watch, under the aegis of The Center for Scientific Integrity. To date, the Retraction Watch Database contains over 66,000 entries of retracted articles from across the scientific literature.
When scientists leave the scientific arena for the commercial arena, using the prestige of peer-reviewed research to influence consumers about products, they begin to resemble those pesky influencers — and the traditional protections afforded to scientific speech don’t seem relevant. While there are legal protections to protect the public from misleading commercial claims, these protections seem inadequate in this situation, and influencers who enjoy the halo of scientific status have escaped inquiry, putting the public at risk.
Peer-reviewed literature enjoys special status in the law, as it often signifies scientific validity and evidentiary admissibility. As litigation involving science has increased, the many scientific “guns for hire” have conscripted scientific publications to publicize their litigation-driven positions. To be sure, the law doesn’t favor litigation-driven research.
That hasn’t stopped paid experts from using the scientific press as a podium for their work, later referenced in court to legitimize their personal (or paid) conclusions. As long as the research, at least superficially, mimics the scientific method, this has been allowed, and attempts by defendants to penalize these researchers for work disparaging their products on the grounds of slander or defamation have failed. (MORE - details)