Interesting. Seems like Science has become less and less immune to money and ego.
Science is pretty much like cell phone service these days. Researchers compete for funds, status, and personal advancement. There may be a few Newtons and Einsteins still around but most are more focused on career than original work.
In this intensely competitive world, corners do get cut and sometimes, although not always, that comes to light.
ww.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33695/title/Top-Science-Scandals-of-2012/
Most medical studies are seriously flawed to the point that professional statisticians would be hesitant to put their names on the papers without such detailed disclaimers as would render the results useless for practical purposes. The "father" of the approach to nutrition used by the government here for more than 50 years, Ancel Keys, was in fact little more than an unpleasant charlatan.
Then there are seemingly "proper" studies that are entirely without merit because of the use of logistic regression to derive the results. I read this particular one yesterday and just shook my head.
/www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/div-classtitlecuriosity-killed-the-cat-no-evidence-of-an-association-between-cat-ownership-and-psychotic-symptoms-at-ages-13-and-18-years-in-a-uk-general-population-cohortdiv/75C9A48B669BE36E947AFB0BC5CB00CA