That article is incredibly frightening. > to conclude that, although misconduct and questionable research methods do occur in “relatively small” frequencies,

That article is incredibly frightening. > to conclude that, although misconduct and questionable research methods do occur in “relatively small” frequencies, which is kind of expected in a career track that doesn't exactly come with hedge fund-type money -- why would many people be dishonest for grants? > there is “no evidence” that the issue is growing. which might mean that the issue isn't in how science is practiced nowadays, but that the scientific process (grants, publication, peer review, research programs) has always been broken. It's not clear that any of these is the case, but it's depressing to see "well, people are generally not crooks and the game has always been played this way" as an optimistic view of the replication crisis.