I'm not sure what the solution is either, ChronicLyme19, but I'm always interested in what people like Dr. Godlee and others have to say about the topic.
Recognizing and then clearly describing any given problem are necessary and important first steps, however coming up with one or more strategies/ideas to solve (or at least minimize) that problem is equally important for there to be any real hope that things will ever improve. Since human beings are involved, I strongly suspect that science will remain imperfect. That said, it certainly does sound like there's plenty of room for improvement.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/bmj-fiona ... -1.3541769
BMJ editor Fiona Godlee takes on corruption in science
'Medicine and science are run by human beings, so there will always be crooks,' says journal editor
By Kelly Crowe, CBC News Posted: Apr 19, 2016 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Apr 19, 2016 5:00 AM ET
"There will be commercial pressures, academic pressures, and to pretend otherwise is absurd. So we have to have many more mechanisms, much more skepticism, and much more willingness to challenge."
As the editor of one of the oldest and most influential medical journals, Godlee is leading several campaigns to change the way science is reported, including opening up data for other scientists to review, and digging up data from old and abandoned trials for a second look.
She has strong words about the overuse of drugs, and the influence of industry on the types of questions that scientists ask, and the conclusions that are drawn from the evidence.
"It's not my job to be popular, I'm very clear about that," she says from her office in the historic British Medical Association building in central London.
"She's taken her licks, as it were, because other people don't like the level of transparency she is bringing to the process," says medical writer Dr. Ivan Oransky, who writes about flawed science on his blog Retraction Watch.
Her solution? Transparency. Throw open the windows, let everyone see everything.
"I do have a belief in the fundamentality of science to correct itself. We can't do that under the blanket of secrecy," she says.
"We also need to have more independence in science, less commercial bias, less ability of academics to follow their own biases. All sorts of checks and balances of that sort. But in the end, transparency, to me, seems like the only correct route."
Edited to add:
"Some problems are so complex that you have to be highly intelligent and well-informed just to be undecided about them." — Laurence J. Peter