AI will soon be able to audit all published research – what will that mean for public trust in science?
Wellington/Cambridge, Jul 26 (The Conversation) Self-correction is fundamental to science. One of its most important forms is peer review, when anonymous experts scrutinise research before it is published. This helps safeguard the accuracy of the written record.
Yet problems slip through. A range of grassroots and institutional initiatives work to identify problematic papers, strengthen the peer-review process, and clean up the scientific record through retractions or journal closures. But these efforts are imperfect and resource intensive.
Soon, artificial intelligence (AI) will be able to supercharge these efforts. What might that mean for public trust in science?
Peer review isn't catching everything
In recent decades, the digital age and disciplinary diversification have sparked an explosion in the number of scientific papers being published, the number of journals in existence, and the influence of for-profit publishing.
This has opened the doors for exploitation. Opportunistic 'paper mills' sell quick publication with minimal review to academics desperate for credentials, while publishers generate substantial profits through huge article-processing fees.
Corporations have also seized the opportunity to fund low-quality research and ghostwrite papers intended to distort the weight of evidence, influence public policy and alter public opinion in favour of their products.
These ongoing challenges highlight the insufficiency of peer review as the primary guardian of scientific reliability. In response, efforts have sprung up to bolster the integrity of the scientific enterprise.
Retraction Watch actively tracks withdrawn papers and other academic misconduct. Academic sleuths and initiatives such as Data Collada identify manipulated data and figures.
Investigative journalists expose corporate influence. A new field of meta-science (science of science) attempts to measure the processes of science and to uncover biases and flaws.
Not all bad science has a major impact, but some certainly does. It doesn't just stay within academia; it often seeps into public understanding and policy.
In a recent investigation, we examined a widely-cited safety review of the herbicide glyphosate, which appeared to be independent and comprehensive. In reality, documents produced during legal proceedings against Monsanto revealed that the paper had been ghostwritten by Monsanto employees and published in a journal with ties to the tobacco industry.
Even after this was exposed, the paper continued to shape citations, policy documents and Wikipedia pages worldwide.
When problems like this are uncovered, they can make their way into public conversations, where they are not necessarily perceived as triumphant acts of self-correction. Rather, they may be taken as proof that something is rotten in the state of science. This 'science is broken' narrative undermines public trust.
AI is already helping police the literature
Until recently, technological assistance in self-correction was mostly limited to plagiarism detectors. But things are changing. Machine-learning services such as ImageTwin and Proofig now scan millions of figures for signs of duplication, manipulation and AI generation.
Natural language processing tools flag 'tortured phrases' – the telltale word salads of paper mills. Bibliometric dashboards such as one by Semantic Scholar trace whether papers are cited in support or contradiction.
AI – especially agentic, reasoning-capable models increasingly proficient in mathematics and logic – will soon uncover more subtle flaws.
For example, the Black Spatula Project explores the ability of the latest AI models to check published mathematical proofs at scale, automatically identifying algebraic inconsistencies that eluded human reviewers. Our own work mentioned above also substantially relies on large language models to process large volumes of text.
Given full-text access and sufficient computing power, these systems could soon enable a global audit of the scholarly record. A comprehensive audit will likely find some outright fraud and a much larger mass of routine, journeyman work with garden-variety errors.
We do not know yet how prevalent fraud is, but what we do know is that an awful lot of scientific work is inconsequential. Scientists know this; it's much discussed that a good deal of published work is never or very rarely cited.
To outsiders, this revelation may be as jarring as uncovering fraud, because it collides with the image of dramatic, heroic scientific discovery that populates university press releases and trade press treatments.
What might give this audit added weight is its AI author, which may be seen as (and may in fact be) impartial and competent, and therefore reliable.
As a result, these findings will be vulnerable to exploitation in disinformation campaigns, particularly since AI is already being used to that end.
Reframing the scientific ideal
Safeguarding public trust requires redefining the scientist's role in more transparent, realistic terms. Much of today's research is incremental, career‑sustaining work rooted in education, mentorship and public engagement.
If we are to be honest with ourselves and with the public, we must abandon the incentives that pressure universities and scientific publishers, as well as scientists themselves, to exaggerate the significance of their work. Truly ground-breaking work is rare. But that does not render the rest of scientific work useless.
A more humble and honest portrayal of the scientist as a contributor to a collective, evolving understanding will be more robust to AI-driven scrutiny than the myth of science as a parade of individual breakthroughs.
A sweeping, cross-disciplinary audit is on the horizon. It could come from a government watchdog, a think tank, an anti-science group or a corporation seeking to undermine public trust in science.
Scientists can already anticipate what it will reveal. If the scientific community prepares for the findings – or better still, takes the lead – the audit could inspire a disciplined renewal. But if we delay, the cracks it uncovers may be misinterpreted as fractures in the scientific enterprise itself.
Science has never derived its strength from infallibility. Its credibility lies in the willingness to correct and repair. We must now demonstrate that willingness publicly, before trust is broken. (The Conversation) NSA
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
NIH cuts spotlight a hidden crisis facing patients with experimental brain implants
Carol Seeger finally escaped her debilitating depression with an experimental treatment that placed electrodes in her brain and a pacemaker-like device in her chest. But when its batteries stopped working, insurance wouldn't pay to fix the problem and she sank back into a dangerous darkness. She worried for her life, asking herself: "Why am I putting myself through this?" Seeger 's predicament highlights a growing problem for hundreds of people with experimental neural implants, including those for depression, quadriplegia and other conditions. Although these patients take big risks to advance science, there's no guarantee that their devices will be maintained - particularly after they finish participating in clinical trials - and no mechanism requiring companies or insurers to do so. A research project led by Gabriel Lazaro-Munoz, a Harvard University scientist, aimed to change that by creating partnerships between players in the burgeoning implant field to overcome barriers to device access and follow-up care. But the cancellation of hundreds of National Institutes of Health grants by the Trump administration this year left the project in limbo, dimming hope for Seeger and others like her who wonder what will happen to their health and progress. An ethical quagmire Unlike medications, implanted devices often require parts, maintenance, batteries and surgeries when changes are needed. Insurance typically covers such expenses for federally approved devices considered medically necessary, but not experimental ones. A procedure to replace a battery alone can cost more than $15,000 without insurance, Lazaro-Munoz said. While companies stand to profit from research, "there's really nothing that helps ensure that device manufacturers have to provide any of these parts or cover any kind of maintenance," said Lazaro-Munoz. Some companies also move on to newer versions of devices or abandon the research altogether, which can leave patients in an uncertain place. Medtronic, the company that made the deep brain stimulation, or DBS, technology Seeger used, said in a statement that every study is different and that the company puts patient safety first when considering care after studies end. People consider various possibilities when they join a clinical trial. The Food and Drug Administration requires the informed consent process to include a description of "reasonably foreseeable risks and discomforts to the participant," a spokesperson said. However, the FDA doesn't require trial plans to include procedures for long-term device follow-up and maintenance, although the spokesperson stated that the agency has requested those in the past. While some informed consent forms say devices will be removed at a study's end, Lazaro-Munoz said removal is ethically problematic when a device is helping a patient. Plus, he said, some trial participants told him and his colleagues that they didn't remember everything discussed during the consent process, partly because they were so focused on getting better. Brandy Ellis , a 49-year-old in Boynton Beach, Florida, said she was desperate for healing when she joined a trial testing the same treatment Seeger got, which delivers an electrical current into the brain to treat severe depression. She was willing to sign whatever forms were necessary to get help after nothing else had worked. "I was facing death," she said. "So it was most definitely consent at the barrel of a gun, which is true for a lot of people who are in a terminal condition." Patients risk losing a treatment of last resort Ellis and Seeger, 64, both turned to DBS as a last resort after trying many approved medications and treatments. "I got in the trial fully expecting it not to work because nothing else had. So I was kind of surprised when it did," said Ellis, whose device was implanted in 2011 at Emory University in Atlanta. "I am celebrating every single milestone because I'm like: This is all bonus life for me." She's now on her third battery. She needed surgery to replace two single-use ones, and the one she has now is rechargeable. She's lucky her insurance has covered the procedures, she said, but she worries it may not in the future. "I can't count on any coverage because there's nothing that says even though I've had this and it works, that it has to be covered under my commercial or any other insurance," said Ellis, who advocates for other former trial participants. Even if companies still make replacement parts for older devices, she added, "availability and accessibility are entirely different things," given most people can't afford continued care without insurance coverage. Seeger, whose device was implanted in 2012 at Emory, said she went without a working device for around four months when the insurance coverage her wife's job at Emory provided wouldn't pay for battery replacement surgery. Neither would Medicare, which generally only covers DBS for FDA-approved uses. With her research team at Emory advocating for her, Seeger ultimately got financial help from the hospital's indigent care program and paid a few thousand dollars out of pocket. She now has a rechargeable battery, and the device has been working well. But at any point, she said, that could change. Federal cuts stall solutions Lazaro-Munoz hoped his work would protect people like Seeger and Ellis. "We should do whatever we can as a society to be able to help them maintain their health," he said. Lazaro-Munoz's project received about $987,800 from the National Institute of Mental Health in the 2023 and 2024 fiscal years and was already underway when he was notified of the NIH funding cut in May. He declined to answer questions about it. Ellis said any delay in addressing the thorny issues around experimental brain devices hurts patients. Planning at the beginning of a clinical trial about how to continue treatment and maintain devices, she said, would be much better than depending on the kindness of researchers and the whims of insurers. "If this turns off, I get sick again. Like, I'm not cured," she said. "This is a treatment that absolutely works, but only as long as I've got a working device."
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Hindustan Times
Are your phone and Wifi blocking black hole signals? Astronomers say it could wreck Earth's cosmic map
Have you ever wondered how Earth's place in the cosmos is ascertained? Turns out, astronomers use faint signals sent from distant black holes to measure Earth's position in the universe with exceptional accuracy. These black holes are located in the hearts of galaxies and their powerful radio waves reach our planet after traveling for millions of years. Fascinating, right? Radio telescopes rely on faint black hole signals, but strong Wifi and phone transmissions are making these cosmic messages hard to hear.(NASA) Scientists record these signals using radio telescopes, then use a technique called 'geodesy' to synchronise measurements from stations all across the world. This network allows them to track Earth's motion and changes in its rotation. These measurements support key technologies like GPS, satellite navigation, Internet timing, and global communications, The Conversation reported. A crowded spectrum In the past, there was plenty of empty radio spectrum set aside for astronomy. Now, as mobile networks, Wifi routers, and countless consumer technologies expand, new slices of the spectrum are claimed every year. Each new mobile service, from 1G to 6G, grabs another piece of the radio highway. The result is increasing interference around the signals astronomers need to catch. The radio waves from distant galaxies are incredibly faint, while human-made signals can be millions of times stronger. Today's radio telescopes often struggle to hear black hole signals clearly because they are buried beneath noise from wireless devices. Even frequencies once reserved for astronomy can become crowded as devices leak radiation or governments reallocate frequencies for commercial use. The precision needed for cutting-edge science is at risk. Why clear signals matter Geodesy is more than a scientific curiosity. Systems that keep aeroplanes on course, help guide container ships, track supply chains, or settle global money transfers depend on knowing the precise location and timing of the Earth. If astronomers lose access to cosmic radio signals, many navigation and timing systems could become less reliable. Scientists propose solutions such as creating 'radio quiet zones' where wireless signals are strictly controlled, or preserving more exclusive frequencies for astronomical research. However, the radio spectrum is managed country by country, and finding global agreement is complicated. Collaboration across borders will be necessary to keep radio astronomy and the services that depend on it functioning smoothly. Many people are unaware that their Wifi routers and smartphones can affect advanced science. As wireless technology spreads, awareness and careful planning are becoming more important. Without action, the view of black holes that lets us pinpoint our place in the universe could be lost in the noise.
News18
2 days ago
- News18
How ancient viruses could help fight antibiotic resistance
Southampton (UK), Jul 29 (The Conversation) If bacteria had a list of things to fear, phages would be at the top. These viruses are built to find, infect and kill them – and they have been doing it for billions of years. Now that ancient battle is offering clues for how we might fight back against antibiotic-resistant infections. As more bacteria evolve to withstand our antibiotics, previously treatable infections are becoming harder – and in some cases, impossible – to cure. This crisis, known as antimicrobial resistance (AMR), already causes over a million deaths a year globally, and the number is rising fast. The World Health Organization has named AMR one of the top ten global public health threats. Phage therapy – the use of phages to treat bacterial infections – is gaining attention as a potential solution. Phages are highly specific, capable of targeting even drug-resistant strains. In some compassionate-use cases in the UK, they have cleared infections where every antibiotic had failed. But phages still face a challenge that is often overlooked: the bacteria themselves. Bacteria have evolved sophisticated systems to detect and destroy phages. These defences are diverse: some cut up viral DNA, others block entry, and a few launch a kind of intracellular shutdown to prevent viral takeover. In a new study published in Cell, my colleagues and I describe a system that works differently, called Kiwa. It acts like a sensor embedded in the bacterial membrane, detecting early signs of attack. Exactly what Kiwa is sensing remains an open question, but our findings suggest it responds to the mechanical stress that occurs when a phage latches on to the cell and injects its DNA. Once triggered, Kiwa acts fast. It shuts down the phage's ability to make the components it needs to build new phages, stopping the infection before it can take over the cell. But just as bacteria evolve ways to defend themselves, phages evolve ways to fight back. In our latest experiments, we saw two strategies in play. Some phages developed small mutations in the proteins they use to attach to the bacterial surface – subtle changes that helped them avoid triggering Kiwa's detection system. Others took a different approach: they allowed themselves to be detected, but escaped the consequences. These phages carried mutations in a viral protein that seems to be involved in how Kiwa shuts down the infection. We don't yet know exactly how this works, but the result is clear: with just a few changes, the virus keeps replicating, even after Kiwa has been activated. This evolutionary flexibility is part of what makes phages so powerful, and why they hold such promise in treating infections. But it also highlights a key challenge: to make phage therapy effective, we need to understand how these microbial battles play out. Rules of engagement If a bacterial strain carries a defence like Kiwa, not all phages will succeed against it. Some might be blocked entirely. But others, with just the right mutations, might slip through. That means choosing or engineering the right phage for the job is not just a matter of trial and error – it is a matter of knowing the rules of engagement. Studying bacterial defence systems like Kiwa gives us a deeper understanding of those rules. It helps explain why some phages fail, why others succeed, and how we might design better phage therapies in the future. In time, we may be able to predict which bacterial defences a given strain carries, and select phages that are naturally equipped – or artificially tuned – to overcome them. That is the idea behind our growing phage collection project. We are gathering phages from across the UK and beyond, including from public submissions – dirty water is often a goldmine – and testing them to see which ones can overcome the defences carried by dangerous bacteria. With over 600 types already catalogued, we are building a resource that could help guide future phage therapy, pairing the right phage with the right infection. Kiwa is just one piece of the puzzle. Bacteria encode many such defence systems, each adding a layer of complexity – and opportunity – to this microbial arms race. Some detect viral DNA directly, others sense damage or stress, and some even coordinate responses with neighbouring cells. The more we learn, the more precisely we can intervene. This is not a new war. Bacteria and phages have been locked in it for billions of years. But for the first time, we are starting to listen in. And if we learn how to navigate the strategies they have evolved, we might find new ways to treat the infections our antibiotics can no longer handle. (The Conversation) NSA NSA First Published: July 29, 2025, 10:00 IST News agency-feeds How ancient viruses could help fight antibiotic resistance Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
