I think this is just as misinformed as someone who thinks there's no problem. In my experience, about a third or half of the 'real' scientists I've met are fir

I think this is just as misinformed as someone who thinks there's no problem. In my experience, about a third or half of the 'real' scientists I've met are firmly in "Big S" science. It's really not that different. People that complain about this a lot are often jealous, in my experience. The failures are certainly high-profile, though. As for reproducibility, it's all case by case. We've (real? scientists) been having the same discussions about data quality forever. It just seems to have found a fresh audience. There's a reason a curmudgeonly PI might insist in Western Blots and - gasp! - Northerns from time to time. Most fields were built off of some real science. Molecular biology certainly was, and to think that just stopped happening in the early 2000s is the height of ignorance. There is cause for alarm. I give pretty much all 'genomic' work a very wide berth unless the lab has a real genetics background, and aside for a few labs, anything with 'microbiome' in it is certifiable garbage. And clearly some entire fields are on shaky ground, namely psychology. But lets not circlejerk our pure 'little s' science ego's too vigorously.