[pieceofthepuzzle]

Yes, but the other contributor to this field is the amount of grant money and academic ‘success’ that comes with tying ones career to a hot topic that is being backed by the political establishment. The first author is a graduate student, probably very hard working nice kid, just trying to qualify for a Ph.D. and have a life and career. It's fine to do computer modeling and add to the cumulative scientific data. However, it's up to the scientific community to stick to the facts, acknowledge the limitations of computer modeling and specific studies, and to above all be very honest with the data - including making all raw data available.

Making raw data available is slowly becoming a requirement in the biological sciences, in part a response to overstatement of data, outright fraud, and over interpretation of findings. Scientists have a responsibility to question their own results, and to be committed to finding the truth - wherever it leads. One problem with this is that if the truth runs contrary to the ‘desired’ truth, it will be difficult to publish, and it could end your career.

[katana]

Academia today, and really in the past as well (Piltdown Man was defended for years after the hoax was exposed by academics who had built their reputations on it), can be absolutely dogmatic in the face of new data and ideas. Once a PhD publishes he will defend that turf to his or her last dying breath. So once they’ve accepted the grant and published getting them to admit error is akin to getting the Catholic Church to admit Copernicus was right back in the 17th century. Best just to ignore or laugh at them and move on.