Ordinary scientists have to go through >10,000 rounds of reviews and revisions to get their papers in Nature (if they at all pass the editors), but the rules are different for wasteful ‘big science’ propaganda from Broad Institute. Such articles are not only accepted without criticism, but Nature editors go out of their way to further promote them in social media. A few months back, we pointed out “Nature Promotes GWAS Madness to Study Mental Health” from Broadster Steven Hyman. Today it is time to cure cancer - the Broad Institute way.
Today’s self-serving article from Broadster Jesse Boehm (assistant director of the Broads Cancer Program) and Todd Golub (director of its Cancer Program) has all the necessary big words - precision cancer genomics, ‘translational’ insight (geez !!), RNAi and CRISPR to cure cancer, ‘translation’ of the cancer genome, ‘next-generation’ cancer models, rare tumors, genomic diversity of cancer, etc. Once you read more than three such articles, you may come to conclude that Broad Institute created template for propaganda. By replacing cancer with any other NIH-funded theme (say, aging) in the article, you can effortlessly create another one that makes complete sense.
Let’s make the following rule to limit self-serving big science propaganda. A researcher will be allowed to publish them under the condition that their institute or people who they collaborated with in previous five years cannot apply for funding from the established pool.
A separate rule needs to be made for pretend science journals like Nature. Do not force people to pay to read propaganda.