Terruana wrote:Any "consequences" that you could apply to a medical researcher whose trial participants lied about symptoms/side effects
If the experiment is done in person, then a patient's self-reporting of symptoms and side-effects could be juxtaposed with the symptoms and side effects the researcher can actually observe. This constitutes a plausible incentive to tell the truth.
If the experiment relies entirely on self-reporting and is not conducted in person, then I'd treat it with just as much skepticism as any other self-reporting survey.
Terruana wrote:and are pretty much limited to "wow, that's kinda embarrassing that you got that wrong".
No.
If your specialization is in the medical sciences, then getting it wrong severely enough can provoke career-threatening suspicion; and rightfully so; of getting it wrong on purpose. (The W.H.O.'s suspected beholdenness to China after they downplayed this pandemic, to the point where money sent to it was put on hold, for instance.)
If your specialization is in the social sciences, people don't care quite as much. (Eg. The media talking about polling failure and then completely forgetting all about it by next week.) A lot of people would rather be caught off guard by an upset victory than face the fact that others have reasons for lying that they don't foresee. Either they don't care if pollsters got it wrong on purpose or they just don't want to go there.
Terruana wrote:I guess you're trying to make the point that you don't trust science or research whether it agrees with you or not, but either way, you're still coming across as the proud owner of a tin foil hat.
Science is not just science. Different subdisciplines have different levels of incentive to pander to whatever their funders; be they the public or just a more specific subset thereof; are willing to believe; or not to.
But yeah, I'd rather come across as a tinfoil hat wearer than a science worshipper.