She stated it is unrewarding because the university didn’t reprimand or remove the bad researcher, and because most papers didn’t retract the bad papers. She didn’t produce new studies disproving the results of the existing one, which might have been a more rewarding pursuit for someone who had that inclination. I’m sure the author has other ideas about what research she should do, and it’s not for us to say.
Yeah, I hear this a lot. That the goal of every scientist is to disprove the consensus and overturn bad science. Yet every time I read a blog article by someone who has actually tried to overturn bad science, they say it's an uphill battle against bad incentives, vested interests and academic politics.
If you know of a scientist who has written about succeeding in achieving this objective and had a great time (in the last 20 years), can you point me to their writing, please?
