Introduction

Science is etymologically derived from the Latin ‘scientia’, which means ‘knowledge’ or ‘expertness’ (Online Etymology Dictionary n.d.). In a modern sense, Science is the combined human knowledge that comes from systematic and methodical observation, analysis of experimental data, and explanation through reasoning.

Science basically acts on some important steps that are always followed but not necessarily in the same sequence. For example, in the beginning is the assumption or observation of a physical fact, event, behavior, and so on. It follows the collection of data through a devised experiment or observation or otherwise, which is followed by data analysis. Understanding the event and its formulation is the next step that leads to theory, methods and tools for obtaining practical results and applications.

Science examines subjects/issues/matters/themes/questions/phenomena of the natural and material world with a variety of methods. Scientific knowledge relies on empirical evidence and is revised when new evidence emerges. Still, although Science studies natural phenomena and provides or employs laws, theories, models and mechanisms to explain them, Science cannot answer all questions that may arise.

The nature of Science can be divided into the following three categories (McComas 2015; Schwartz et al. 2004):

  1. i.

    Tools and products of Science: Science is based on empirical evidence, so careful observation, data recording and truthfulness in reporting are essential. Science uses specific methods such as inductive reasoning and hypothetical and deductive testing. It devises experiments, makes observations and produces inferences that describe laws and theories.

  2. ii.

    Human elements of Science: Observations, ideas, and conclusions in science may not be really objective and scientific investigation may be biased. Historical, cultural, and social factors influence the practice and direction of science. The topics of scientific investigation are many times dictated by factors that include the needs of a particular society, the focus of study guided by a specific institution, the available funding, as well as the curiosity of scientists.

  3. iii.

    Science knowledge and its limits: Scientific knowledge is uncertain on many topics and cannot answer all the questions. Generally, Science is robust and can discover and correct possible mistakes/errors due to the methods used.

The positive role of Science in areas such as social development, human health, technology and so on, in the course of human history and civilization is self-evident. However, like most aspects of life, the objectivity of Science has been constantly criticized in the philosophy of science, questioning both its value and its attainability (Reis and Sprenger 2014). The question of the objectivity of science has been raised in two of its aspects, namely (i) the actual research behavior of scientists, and (ii) the methodological standards for critical evaluation and justification of scientific claims and procedures (Hempel 1983).

A literature survey (e.g., Andrade 2020; Campanario 1998a; Campanario 1998b; Fanelli 2009; Jukola 2016; Kaatz et al. 2014; Mancosu et al. 2017; Mannan 2016), but also many others as mentioned in individual sub-sections of "Theoretical discussion on objectivity of science and external factors" section) shows that, as it is argued, scientists may be influenced in the field of the problem and in the method of investigation by factors such as moral ethics, biased thoughts and individual idiosyncrasies or other. Scientists are usually committed to predetermined scientific values and rules, and they adhere to certain standard procedures for adopting or rejecting a given hypothesis or theory. Social and political reasons can direct substantial research in particular field areas, but there is always the danger that they may encourage the promotion of ill-founded theories.

The present study focuses on and examines the main external factors, resulted from the literature survey, that influence the objectivity of Science, namely (i) Research funding, policy makers and industry, (ii) Journal editors, (iii) Dogma, (iv) Theories declared as Conspiracies, (v) Mutual interests in Academia, (vi) Control of knowledge, cover ups and war superiority. It must be clarified here that now on in the term “Science” and its derivatives, we include all tertiary education disciplines varying from Classic Art to Economics, Engineering, Medicine, Physics, and so on. The goal here is not to decide whether Science is independent and reliable, but how interested parties—all scientists alike regardless of their expertise and status, whether these be new University graduates or distinguished professors—perceive this matter. It is true that such perception depends on the personal experience of each individual. To this end, the response of the scientific community to the above-referred factors is examined through a questionnaire that was circulated among scientists in 15 countries. One hundred six (106) responds from 11 countries were anonymously received, and an analysis of the results is presented.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In "Materials and methods" section, the tools and methodology used for achieving the objectives of the paper are presented. These consist of a theoretical background through the literature and a structured questionnaire based on this. "Theoretical discussion on objectivity of science and external factors" section presents the theoretical foundations of the study consisting of an analysis of the above-mentioned external factors. This is followed by "Quantitative analysis and results" section, where the questionnaire is presented and analyzed. Finally, conclusions and implications of the study are given in "Discussion" section.

Materials and methods

The first step in the present study was to theoretically analyze several (probably the most important) factors affecting the independence and reliability of Science. Such factors (six of them) arise from the literature survey as already specified in the Introduction. Discussing these factors ("Theoretical discussion on objectivity of science and external factors" section) constitutes the theoretical background in the methodology followed here.

The next step was to construct a questionnaire with items, as individually analyzed in the theoretical discussion (see "Theoretical discussion on objectivity of science and external factors" section), reflecting the factors. The questionnaire was meant to model the six factors through itemized Likert-scale questions posed per factor. For the choice of such itemized questions, in addition to the theoretical background and the literature review, a qualitative approach was followed that included discussions with peers of the authors who had their own views on whether Science is independent and/or whether Science is reliable.

The extent of the questionnaire was kept as short as possible in order to facilitate the completion by each participant. Following a pilot survey in Cyprus, the final version of the questionnaire consisted of the following sections: (a) Demographic information about the company, and (b) 34 Likert scale (1–5) questions covering the six factors mentioned above, namely (i) Research funding, policy makers and industry, (ii) Journal editors, (iii) Dogma, (iv) Theories declared as Conspiracies, (v) Mutual interests in Academia, (vi) Knowledge control, cover ups and war superiority (see Table 2). A ‘1’ means the respondent strongly disagrees, ‘2’ means they disagree, ‘3’ means they neither agree nor disagree, ‘4’ means they agree and ‘5’ means they strongly agree. It must be noted here that the questions were posed in a negative manner with regard to the independence and reliability of Science, as was the case with the theoretical discussion of the factors. This is so as the goal of the present study is to explore the negative effect of certain factors on Science; regarding the positive side of factors on Science, we believe it is well known and largely accepted. Hence if an answer is larger than 3, this would mean that the respondent tends to believe that Science is not completely independent or reliable.

The final version of the questionnaire was sent to a number of colleagues of the authors (about 30) in a number of different countries (about 15) who were asked to promote it themselves to other scientists. Anonymity was guaranteed due to the online nature of the questionnaire. In order to establish reliability of responds, it was also promised to the respondents that all replies were in no way going to be explicitly published.

The goal was to see how all scientists, regardless of their expertise and status, i.e., a range of scientists from new University graduates to distinguished professors, perceive the objectivity of Science.

The outcome with regard to questionnaire participation was the following. There were 106 responds in total (per country, they ranged from 7 to 15) from 11 countries, namely Australia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovakia, Syria, UK and USA. Regarding gender, 58 of the respondents were male and 48 were female. Regarding age group, 22 of the participants were 25–34 years of age, 38 were 35–49 years old and 46 were 50 or more years old. Also, 40 participants were Academics, 32 were Researchers and 34 were simply University degree holders. Finally, regarding their scientific field, 28 of the respondents were in Arts & Humanities or Social Sciences, 36 were in Natural, Medical, Agricultural or Veterinary Sciences, and 42 were in Engineering.

Clearly one cannot claim that, with a sample of 106 scientists, and without using an absolutely unbiased methodology both in posing the questions and in reaching large ranges of scientific communities either per country or worldwide, the results are representative of the whole picture. Having said that, the results can indicate certain trends within the scientific (from all University disciplines as stated above) community that can be compared to the discussion given in the current study.

A measurement model for the six constructs (factors) of the questionnaire is tested, securing construct reliability and validity through structural equation modelling. This includes a confirmatory factor analysis, convergent validity, discriminant validity, construct reliability, composite reliability and the absence of common method bias. The details of the above analysis along with the findings of the study are given in "Quantitative analysis and results" section.

Theoretical discussion on objectivity of science and external factors

It is, we believe, accepted that throughout the history of Science, there exist a very large number of examples, where good scientific ideas were originally rejected (that is sometimes reasonable and inevitable), only later to be found valid. It is also probably true that the scientific community does not want “non-paradigmatic” ideas to be accepted “too” quickly. In addition, it must also be mentioned that from old times, starting in the medieval years probably, “authorities” (political, religious, economical) always influenced and directed Science. To this end, some indicative, among many, cases that show the prejudice against new ideas and understandings of natural happenings in all fields of Science are presented below.

Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) was an Italian astronomer, physicist and engineer, who supported the Copernican heliocentrism, with the Earth rotating around itself and revolving around the sun. The Catholic Church and some astronomers of the time opposed his views, and the matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615. It was decided that heliocentrism was foolish, absurd, and heretical, as it contradicted the Holy Scripture (Bible). Insisting on his views, Galileo was tried in 1632 by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy" and forced to spend the rest of his life under house arrest (Hannam 2009). It is only in 1992 that Pope John Paul II acknowledged that the Church had erred in condemning Galileo for asserting that the Earth revolved around the Sun, although the Church’s official opposition to heliocentrism had ended in 1835 (McMullin 2005).

The Wright brothers—the now famous American aviation pioneers—credited with inventing and flying the world’s first heavier-than-air aircraft in1903, were initially met with great skepticism. In 1906 skeptics in the European aviation community led the press to take a stand against the Wright brothers (The Prize Patrol n.d), but later, after the Wrights' first flights in France in 1908, they publicly admitted that they were wrong.

In 1996 President Clinton made a statement about a Mars meteorite discovery (President Clinton Statement Regarding Mars Meteorite Discovery 1996). He stated that meteorite ALH 84001 formed about 4 billion years ago and was a part of the original crust of Mars. After billions of years it broke off the surface and began a 16-million-year journey in space that ended on Earth 13,000 years ago. It was found in 1984 by a USA mission to Antarctica and was studied by some of the world's most distinguished scientists of NASA, who concluded that there was evidence of life on Mars in the meteorite. President Clinton said that the discovery should be confirmed by other scientists and should continue to be further reviewed, examined and scrutinized. Many more studies have been undertaken since then, trying to prove or disprove the evidence of life. Thomas-Keprta et al. (2009) suggested that the majority of ALH84001 magnetites were of allochthonous origin and added to the carbonate system from an external source that could not exclude biogenic processes. On the other hand, Martel et al. (2012) expressed their belief that there is a simple and down-to-earth explanation that can account fully for the existence of mineral entities resembling putative nano- and micro-organisms that have been described not only in the ALH84001 meteorite but also in the human body. Even today, Science is not able to make a definitive decision about the discovery because it is very difficult to change the norm and, although the traces could also be biological, Science prefers to stick to the norm and non-biological explanations (McSween 2019; Javaux 2019; Joseph et al. 2019).

It is very hard for scientists to come across an extraordinary find. They have the dilemma of deciding whether to make it public or cover it.

There have been cases that scientists reported their finds, but the end-result was for them to have problems with their job and remain forever in the margins of Science. One such and indicative example was Dr Aris Poulianos, a Geek expert anthropologist and archaeologist. In 1965, being a distinguished researcher, he was invited to accept a University seat in Anthropology as an honor from the Greek government. In 1965 Poulianos stumbled upon a skull discovered (since 1960) in the Petralona cave (Greece) and began to study the cave and skull. He found the ‘Petralona man’ to be 700,000 years old, making it the oldest human fossil ever discovered in Europe, and he proposed that the Petralona man had evolved separately, challenging the Out of Africa theory regarding human evolution. Insisting on this, he lost his position, and at the same time further research in the cave and the skull was prohibited by the Government; the skull was then set out of reach. Poulianos, who founded the Anthropological Association of Greece in 1971, had a long-running dispute with the Greek Ministry of Culture, which attempted to remove the Association from the excavation site at the Petralona cave. Although the dispute ended successfully for Poulianos, the Greek Archaeological Department forbade him from further work in the cave, without giving any explanation. It is worth noting that the European Anthropological Association, in a 2012 letter to the Greek Ministry of Education, Religions, Culture and Sports states that the skull scientifically dates about 700,000 years ago (Black 2014; People/Aris Poulianos n.d.). The Petralona skull is thought to be of Middle Pleistocene age with a proposed date of ca. 250–300,000, although there is a high degree of uncertainty about its chronological placement (Harvati 2022). Clearly, human evolution would be viewed differently if the consensus was reached for the 700,000 years age, and differently if the consensus was reached for the 300,000 years age.

In all cases, the loser is Science. Especially when the controversy is over critical topics, delaying the truth to emerge may prevent, in many cases, the course of human development.

Research funding, policy makers and industry

Funding is a major means for research activities. It is needless to stress its importance in employing more scientists, better equipment and so on, toward studying a scientific problem. But the choice of a research problem is greatly influenced by the funding possibilities, with scientists focusing on seeking funded programs. In this way Science can be turned into a tool of the funding authorities, regardless of the fact that the funding system varies from country to country affecting topics of research or topics.

One has to agree that with funding, problems that are considered urgent by society will be easier to solve, an example being the recent 2020/21 research on ‘Covid-19’ vaccines and their mass production. Motivated by urgency, such a research aims at saving human lives, even though the scientific standards may be lowered, as no one could—with certainty—predict the long-term effects of these new vaccines on human health.

On the other hand, the outcome of a research depends on the moral and ethical standards and intentions of the funding body. Very often, because of the human nature, it turns out that scientific studies having destructive aspects are first utilized to kill. As an example, one can mention the funding of the research on splitting the atom that led to the production of the atomic bomb.

In other cases, funding agencies and industry lobbies with external interests intervene in the autonomy of Science for the purpose of exploiting people and acquiring wealth. The proliferation and application of scientific results inevitably depend on the personal values and ethics of scientists, journal editors and end-users, and there is little one can do about it.

Another important aspect of funding is that what can be called really-frontier research is not actually funded. Research projects’ proposals usually describe work that does not involve high risks, because the reviewers do not prefer proposals with uncertain outcomes (Franssen et al. 2018). In this way the progress of Science is restricted.

The situation becomes highly disturbing when policymakers are involved in funding. In this case, scientists can either adjust and align their research with public policy in some clever way, or can energetically work to suppress evidence, or even—in some cases—invent in advance evidence to discredit their opponents (Curry 2013).

There is evidence that Science has been manipulated and exploited to advance political agendas via the politicization of Science, i.e., by emphasizing the inherent uncertainty of Science to cast doubt on the existence of scientific consensus (Han and Kim 2020). In this manner, politicization could be guided by political actors, industry agents, scientists and other groups of people with certain interests.

On the other hand, scientific consensus (i.e., agreement among scientists on a subject) can be seen as “implying knowledge” or “getting it right”. Many folk epistemological systems (as, for example, the jury trial system in courts of justice) rely on the connection between agreement and truth, but agreement does not always mean getting it right (Borgatti and Halgin 2015). In the case of physical or natural science, the use of unconfirmed theoretical models with high tolerances may not produce knowledge, but it can easily be used by politicians to manipulate people.

Although difficult to accept, in some cases private firms are governed by free-market ideologies and are driven by the sheer pursuit of profit, putting ethics aside. They do not hesitate to put the public health at risk with their products when they establish that the balance between profits and costs (from lawsuits and criminal convictions) is rewarding (Thomson 2008). In this case, of course, the firms will recruit scientists who are willing to conduct guided research for certain products. This way advertising the products and persuading people to buy them is made easier, regardless of the quality of the product.

One such example of how funding, policymakers and industry, influence the course of humanity is the ‘War of the Currents’. Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla got into a battle over whether humanity should use Direct current (DC) or Alternating current (AC), not necessarily caring what the best solution was. In the 1800s large amounts of funding were spent on the production of a durable light lamp. In 1880, Edison succeeded to produce filament lamps that lasted for 1000 h and in 1882, using a DC power plant consisting of coal-fired steam turbines and dynamos, he successfully electrified the Drexel-Morgan Building, the headquarters of the ‘New York Times’. Τo meet the DC current demand of the load, large diameter copper wires had to be used at high cost. In Europe, meanwhile, Tesla, examining the drawbacks of DC current production and distribution, developed a different system using the advantages of AC. A war was therefore ensued. Edison, not wanting to lose the royalties of his DC patents, launched a campaign to discredit the use of AC. He misinformed the public by saying that AC was more dangerous than DC, going as far as to publicly electrocute old dogs, cows or horses with AC to prove his point. The war ended when the famous scientist Lord Kelvin was commissioned to investigate proposals from around the world on how to harness the energy of Niagara Falls. Kelvin recognized the advantages of the lower costs of an AC system and AC’s ability to transmit energy over long distances, and the Westinghouse Company was awarded the contract. In 1895 the war was over when the power plant was successfully inaugurated (Cowdrey 2006).

Journal editors

The authors of a scientific article (paper) attempt to disseminate the findings of their research through peer-reviewed publications. This process has implications at the personal, institutional, national and corporate levels (Matías-Guiu and García-Ramos 2010).

In theory (and ideally), journal editors are independent and autonomous to apply purely scientific criteria to their decisions for publication. Theory is of course not always the same as practice, as editors follow editorial policies and the selection process is performed within a given framework of contextual and operational decisions. Editors can become biased when there are high rewards at steak. Journals themselves compete for high impact factors and high financial incomes for success. This creates an antiscientific culture in which the pushiness (for trendy papers and authors) and political skills are greatly rewarded, leaving behind imaginative approaches, high-quality results and logical arguments (Lawrence 2003).

Political and institutional Intervention for specific purposes is not uncommon. In this way non-scientific agendas can be promoted and allowed to penetrate the minds of scientists and people. At the same time, papers that are worth been published may be rejected, because they contain ideas or results that run counter to the invested interest.

Brainard and You (2018) state that paper retractions are relatively rare, involving only about two out of every 10,000 papers. According to retraction notices, the retractions are due to fraud (fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism), other kinds of misconduct (such as fake peer review), possible misconduct, errors, problems with reliability, and other issues.

It should be noted that authors themselves are not angels. There may be little doubt about the fraudulent nature of fabrication, but falsification is a more problematic category. Scientific results can be distorted in several ways, which can often be very subtle and/or elude researchers' conscious control. Data, for example: (i) can be ‘cooked’ to give ordinary observations the character of those of the highest degree of accuracy; (ii) can be ‘mined’ to yield a statistically significant relationship that is then presented as the original target of the study; (iii) can be partially published only when the selected part supports one's expectations; (iv) can conceal conflicts of interest; and so on. Such ‘misbehaviors’ could be indicated as ‘questionable research practices’ and their impact on research can be negative (Fanelli 2009).

More disturbing is the fact that accepted papers may sometimes be redrawn or even not published at all, not on the basis of their scientific value, but due to interventions related to publication bias. This is partly due to the lack of adequate regulations for such interventions. Publication bias and selective outcome reporting are major threats to the validity of conclusions based on a body of evidence. Thaler et al. (2015) report that no empirical studies of current interventions have been shown to reduce bias.

Bias can arise from the actions of primary study investigators or from the actions of authors of review papers or may be unavoidable due to constraints on how research can be conducted in practice (Higgins et al. 2020). The actions of the main players (authors and editors) can, in turn, be influenced by conflicts of interest.

An example of current bias is the search for life on the red planet. By studying the origin and history of life on the Earth, scientists have identified fourteen major parameters related to the initial conditions of the Earth when the planet was born at 4.56 Ga. The most important initial conditions that led to the creation and evolution of life were the size of the planet and the amount of water contained in the ocean (Maruyama et al. 2013). Today it is believed that for life to exist on Mars, there must be liquid water (Life on Mars—New Scientist n.d.).

Because of the above, the results of the Labeled Release (LR) life detection experiment on NASA’s spectacular Viking mission to Mars in 1976, were interpreted as non-biological and have been silenced ever since. In 2019 Gilbert V. Levin, one of the scientists who designed and conducted the tests, in an article in ‘Observations / Opinion of the Scientific American’ says he is convinced that evidence of life on Mars was found in the 1970s (Levin 2019). Free scientific discussion on this matter is not accepted by the ‘mainstream’ and NASA nowadays announces that a key objective of the 2021 Perseverance’s mission on Mars is astrobiology, including the search for signs of ancient microbial life (Searching for Life in NASA's Perseverance Mars Samples 2021). In this way NASA precludes the search and discussion for the existence of present life. And this is occurring, despite the fact that there may be other indications for the existence of present life on Mars, such as the observed seasonal variations of methane on Mars that cannot be explained by known atmospheric chemistry and physics (Lefevre and Forget 2009). This bias, of course, does not allow free scientific discussion on the matter. Scientists who argue that they have detected existing life on Mars are also excluded from the mainstream publications—see for instance (Joseph et al. 2021).

Scientific theories, findings and facts become valid on the grounds of peer review procedures and subsequent acceptance by the scientific community. Hence, the role of journals and journal editors and how they view a ‘new’ or controversial proposition is crucial. Consequently, the way the editors view Science and ‘non-mainstream’ views can influence the progress of knowledge.

Dogma

Dogma is any belief or principle that is unquestionably established or accepted as certainty. Its adherents do not allow any logical and reasonable discussion about it. Usually, dogma refers to matters of religion, but also to political or philosophical matters.

Dogmas sometimes enter the realm of research in Science. Usually, a dogma in Science focuses on a recognized authority and is accepted by a group or "mini-establishment" of true believers. As a religious dogma its adherents refuse to consider discussing it and any arguments are no longer taken into account. Dogmas in Science usually occur over theoretical models where direct experimentation (or observation) is not possible, with its followers sometimes misquoting or misrepresenting undisputable facts presented by opposing scientists (Öpik 1977).

When a scientific theory becomes widely accepted among the scientific community, it becomes a scientific dogma, and anyone who proposes a radical new idea is rarely taken seriously, because a great number of scientists will have based their entire careers on the existing theory. All this might lead to scientific bias.

An example of challenging existing dogmas, through intense scientific observation and sheer persistence, was the discovery of viruses at the end of the nineteenth century by three botanical scientists. Their discovery led to a paradigm shift in scientific thought, but it took more than 20 years for it to be accepted because it was ‘incompatible’ with the prevailing dogma of the time (Artenstein 2012).

Another example is the dogma that relativity theory prohibits superluminal propagation. Although it has been experimentally established that, under some circumstances, superluminal phase velocities are observed, it is usually claimed that these superluminal velocities do not violate the relativistic prohibition. This means that our understanding of the relationship between relativity theory and superluminal propagation requires further study (Weatherall 2014).

The progress of Science can negatively be affected, this time by dogmatic views that may delay or prevent the emergence of useful and important findings (see also the Galileo Galilei case detailed above). The loser is once more Science and human development.

Theories declared as conspiracies

A conspiracy theory is the reasoning and explanation of a physical/natural fact or behavior given by powerful groups with bad intentions, which could be politically, economically or otherwise motivated. This comes in contrast to the expert mainstream explanation or consensus. The term has a negative meaning, implying that the conspiracy is based on biased or insufficient evidence and shows opposition to the mainstream scientists who are accepted to be more qualified to evaluate its correctness. Goertzel (1994) correlated the belief in conspiracies with anomia, lack of interpersonal trust, and insecurity about employment.

Of course, conspiracy theories are not always false, as indicated by examples such as the studies and experiments by American scientists on the militarization of the weather in the 1950s. Years later, rumors of weather warfare in the Vietnam War began to emerge (Shapley 1972). Finally, in 1974, the U.S. Defense Department acknowledged to Congress that the Air Force and Navy participated in extensive rain‐making operations in Southeast Asia from 1967 to 1972 in an attempt to slow the movement of North Vietnamese troops and supplies (Hersh 1974). Another example is the mind control experiment (the attempt to experimentally test the effect of dosing people with LSD in the MKUltra program of the CIA (Linville 2016)), the UFO existence that has been denied for 70 years but has proven to be real (Statement by the Department of Defense on the Release of Historical Navy Videos 2020), and others.

Conspiracies persist, when either no definitive explanation for an event exists, or the official account appears inadequate (Aaronovitch 2009). Conspiracies are appealing to societies and gain support because of their persuasive and plausible nature. This affects general behavior and can have important social consequences, such as diminished social engagement in health measures, politics, environment, and so on.

When a significant conspiracy is established, people and scientists split in opposing parties, both presenting their best explanations but at the same time trying to downplay the ideas of their opponents. In this situation, ‘mainstream’ scientists have the advantage of publishing their views through scientific journals and the press, from which ‘skeptics’ are excluded. Then ridicule comes along with personal attacks to discredit the qualifications of the ‘conspiracy’ scientists involved. Last, but not least, debunkers (persons or organizations) come into the picture to uncover or discredit the ‘conspiracy’ claims that have to be incorrect, exaggerated, or pretentious. In such cases, everyone holds to their positions and only time clears the situation when new information comes to light.

One must seriously look into the subject of ‘conspiracy theory’, because in the end it may be another propaganda tool invented to silence serious scientists from expressing educated opinions in scientific journals that could trigger a healthy discussion on an important subject. Otherwise, public opinion is easily influenced and directed in predetermined paths.

The above discussion shows that Science is good only when it is healthy.

Mutual interests in Academia

Scientists find it difficult and uncomfortable to discuss or express opinions on matters that may contradict established paths. There is a view that people have no vision for the future and reject new ideas and innovations, because they take them out of the comfort zone of ‘doing business as usual’ (Curt Jaimungal Interviews Avi Loeb 2021). It is evident that the whole structure of one’s academic world is based on other people evaluating them at different stages of their career, either through letters of recommendation or through committee evaluations; so one has to follow the path and one has to protect their image in the academic community. Grant procedures involve selection committees set up by’mainstream establishment’ people who have certain agendas and do not welcome ‘innovation’ as much.

In general, one’s career depends on decision makers that behave as conformists, caring about political considerations and must approve the agenda. As a result, one has to listen and cannot deviate too much from the bitten path. The contact and experience with other academics, makes one become similar to them, even if they started with different ideas. Usually, the academic environment prevents one to suggest something different, but drives one to follow incentives for innovation given by industries, where new ideas are welcome, because of mutual profit. Logically, an idea should be evaluated on its own merit and not on the person it comes from. But, in practice, ideas are judged favorably if they come from a respected person and not because of their merit (Curt Jaimungal Interviews Avi Loeb 2021).

Because of the mutual interests in Academia, many academics/researchers are reluctant to make public their opinions and experiences before their retirement or even death. One such case is that of Paul Hill, who wrote a scientific analysis for unconventional flying objects; the book (Hill 1995) was published after his death.

Rare statements and reactions as the above, which are even more rarely believed or accepted, are made from people who are no longer afraid to pay the price.

Control of knowledge, cover ups and war superiority

As Major General J.C. Fuller, of the USA, stated, “Tools or weapons, if only the right ones can be discovered, form 99% of victory. Strategy, command, leadership, courage, discipline, supply, organization, and all of the moral and physical paraphernalia of war are nothing to a high superiority of weapons-at most they go to form the one percent which makes the whole possible” (Holley 2004).

From the above it is obvious that great importance is given to the technological superiority that results from research in Science and technology. To maintain the superiority of weapon systems, the military forces cooperate with the top universities. Strong links between universities and the Military have the potential to be mutually beneficial for both partners. There are numerous ways in which universities play an important role in this area, but the most important, besides opening new posts for military activities that support recruitment into the military forces, is collaborating on joint research projects and providing skills training for personnel (University links with the armed forces Case studies 2019).

Joint research projects are, of course, what military forces are most interested in. Such an example is the research on small, unmanned platforms used in aerospace sector. Opponents who are incapable in procuring fifth-generation fighter aircraft are turning toward small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) that rely on their portability and low cost. As UAS technologies develop, the Military must not only acquire short-range air defences to destroy them, but also pioneer the expansion of UAS roles in reconnaissance, tactical resupply, electronic warfare, counterair, and communications (Hurst 2019). The same can be said for unmanned submarine systems to control the seas.

All new research leads to new developments and technological systems, regrettably finding direct use in the production of new weapons to destroy and kill the enemy. It is easy to understand that military/defense projects (called black projects in the USA and the UK), are highly classified, not publicly acknowledged by government, military personnel, and defense contractors. Examples of USA black projects include the F-117 Nighthawk stealth attack aircraft and the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber (Black project—Military n.d.).

The scientific and technological achievements of a Nation provide it with both real and perceived power and capabilities, in a military, economic, political, and diplomatic sense. In a national security context, it allows a country to lead in militarily critical areas, such as nuclear weapons design, computer technology, space reconnaissance, electronic micro-miniaturization, stealth technology and others. The reason for keeping scientific knowledge and technology secret is simply to preserve the time of the Nation’s superiority as much as possible and prevent others from acquiring the technology (Kapper 1991).

In many instances, industrial researchers and governments use scientific secrets as an effective tool to manipulate the beliefs of their competitors and the larger public, and not necessarily to protect the knowledge they possess (Vermeir and Margócsy 2012).

On the other hand, driven by profit, the role of industry needs to be extended to military/ industrial research areas and make applications available to the masses. Existing applications from military research include GPS, synthetic rubber, microwave oven and many more (Frohlich et al. 2019).

Quantitative analysis and results

Model fit analysis

First, a measurement model was evaluated by testing the pre-specified relationships between with the six constructs (factors) of the questionnaire and their indicators, and securing construct reliability and validity through structural equation modelling using EQS. In testing the measurement model, the psychometric properties of the constructs were checked through a confirmatory factor analysis, using the elliptical reweighted least-square procedure, which revealed a very good fit to the data (χ2 = 825.46, p = 0.00, df = 512; NFI = 0.75; NNFI = 0.87; CFI = 0.89; RMSEA = 0.11, 90% C.I. = (0.096, 0.123)) (Bagozzi and Yi 1988) (see Table 1).

Table 1 Results of the measurement model
Full size table

Convergent validity was met, as the t-value for each item was always high and significant, all standard errors of the estimated coefficients were very low, and the average variance extracted for each construct was greater than 0.50 (Hair et al. 2018). Moreover, there was evidence of discriminant validity, because the confidence interval around the correlation estimate for each pair of constructs examined never included 1.00 (Anderson and Gerbing 1988), while the squared correlation for each pair of constructs never exceeded their average variance extracted (AVE) (Fornell and Larcker 1981) (see Tables 1 and 2). Furthermore, we checked for construct reliability, which was satisfactory because all constructs in our conceptual model exhibited Cronbach’s alphas (α) greater than 0.74 (which is above the threshold level of 0.70), while composite reliability (ρ) was also satisfactory, with all coefficients being greater than 0.79 (which is also well above the threshold level of 0.50).

Table 2 Correlation matrix
Full size table

To examine the potential of suffering from common method bias, we employed two different tests, both of which indicated the inexistence of such a problem. First, we used Harman’s single-factor test (Podsakoff and Organ 1986), where all items from all scales used were included in a principal component analysis with varimax rotation. Six separate factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 emerged from the unrotated factor solution (see scree plot in Fig. 1), while these factors explained 67% of the total variance (with the first factor explaining 25%). Second, we employed the confirmatory factor approach, in which all items included in the measurement model were forced to load on a single factor (Venkatraman and Prescott 1990), revealing fit indices that are below the commonly acceptable cut-off points (i.e., χ2 = 8941.28, p = 0.000; df = 2050; NFI = 0.70; NNFI = 0.73; CFI = 0.74; RMSEA = 0.14).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Eigenvalues for each of the six factors of the questionnaire

Full size image

Results

The mean scores per question for each sample characteristic and the whole sample are summarized in Table 3. A first observation is that the average of all mean scores for the whole sample (see last row and last column entry) is 3.62, well above 3, indicating that the participants are largely in line with the expressed positions of the present paper. It is also noteworthy that the averages of the individual characteristics (see last row) are also all above 3.42. Among all groups (of characteristics), the Arts & Humanities or Social Sciences group (ART) and the Academics group (ACA) seem to have the strongest opinions with averages of 3.98 and 3.81 respectively.

Table 3 The mean scores per question for each sample characteristic
Full size table

Regarding the individual questions, they are summarized per factor. For factor (i) (Research funding, policy makers and industry) the average of the whole sample is 3.50, well above 3, indicating that the participants are largely in line with the expressed positions related to that factor (see relevant Section above). It is also noteworthy that the averages of the individual characteristics are also all above 3. Among all groups (of characteristics), the 25–34 age group (25–34) and the Natural, Medical, Agricultural or Veterinary Sciences group (NAT) seem to have the weakest opinions with averages of 3.21 and 3.29 respectively, while the Arts & Humanities or Social Sciences group (ART) and the Academics group (ACA) seem to have the strongest opinions with averages of 3.77 and 3.75 respectively. It is of note that for the whole sample (see last column) questions 6 (Science has been manipulated and exploited to advance political agendas via the politicization of Science) has a mean of 4, indicating a pure agreement between the respondents and the positions related to the question. On the other hand, the University degree holders’ group (UNI) and the Female group (FEM) exhibit mean scores of 2.65 and 2.92 respectively for question 5 (Frontier research that may be considered radical is not actually funded), indicating a weak disagreement with the positions related to the question. Moreover, for the whole sample (see last column) questions 8 (Scientific consensus (i.e., agreement among scientists) on a subject should not be seen as “solving a problem” or “creating science”) has a mean of 2.15, indicating a pure disagreement between the respondents and the positions related to the question.

For factor (ii) (Journal editors and authors) the average of the whole sample is 3.58, well above 3, indicating that the participants are largely in line with the expressed positions related to that factor (see relevant Section). The averages of the individual characteristics are also all above 3. Among all groups (of characteristics), the Engineering group (ENG) and the Researchers group (RES) seem to have the weakest opinions with averages of 3.36 and 3.39 respectively, while the Arts & Humanities or Social Sciences group (ART) seems to have by far the strongest opinions with an average of 4.10. It is of note that for the whole sample (see last column) question 9 (Journal editors are not independent and autonomous to apply purely scientific criteria to their decisions for publication) has a mean of 2.89, indicating a weak disagreement between the respondents and the positions related to the question.

For factor (iii) (Dogma in Science) the average of the whole sample is 3.76, well above 3, indicating that the participants are largely in line with the expressed positions related to that factor (see relevant Section). The averages of the individual characteristics are also all above 3. Among all groups (of characteristics), the Arts & Humanities or Social Sciences group (ART), the Female group (FEM) and the Academics group (ACA) seem to have the strongest opinions with averages of 4.36, 3.94 and 3.91 respectively, while the Natural, Medical, Agricultural or Veterinary Sciences group (NAT) seems to have the weakest opinions with an average of 3.53. It is of note that for the whole sample (see last column) question 18 (Dogmatic views may delay or prevent the emergence of new useful and important findings) has a mean of 4.11, indicating a clear agreement between the respondents and the positions related to the question.

For factor (iv) (Theories declared as Conspiracies) the average of the whole sample is 3.45, above 3, indicating that the participants are in line with the expressed positions related to that factor (see relevant Section). The averages of the individual characteristics are also all above 3. Among all groups (of characteristics), the Arts & Humanities or Social Sciences group (ART), seems to have the strongest opinions with an average of 3.86, while the Academics group (ACA) and the Engineering group (ENG) seem to have the weakest opinions with an average of 3.13 and 3.19. It is of note that for the whole sample (see last column) question 19 (The term “conspiracy” has a negative meaning, implying that it is based on biased or insufficient evidence and shows opposition to the mainstream scientists who are accepted to be more qualified to evaluate its correctness.) has a mean of 3.85, indicating a good agreement between the respondents and the positions related to the question.

For factor (v) (Mutual interests in Academia) the average of the whole sample is 3.74, well above 3, indicating that the participants are largely in line with the expressed positions related to that factor (see relevant Section). The averages of the individual characteristics are also all well above 3. Among all groups (of characteristics), the 25–34 age group and the Arts & Humanities or Social Sciences group (ART), seem to have the strongest opinions with averages of 4.17 and 4.07 respectively, while the Engineering group (ENG) and the 35–49 years old, seem to have the weakest opinions with an average of 3.47 and 3.53 respectively. It is of note that for the whole sample (see last column) question 28 (In practice, academic ideas are judged favorably, depending firstly on the status and reputation of the person proposing, and secondly on the merit of the idea itself) has a mean of 4.04, indicating a clear agreement between the respondents and the positions related to the question.

For factor (vi) (Control of knowledge, cover ups and war superiority) the average of the whole sample is 3.76, well above 3, indicating that the participants are largely in line with the expressed positions related to that factor (see Section xxx). The averages of the individual characteristics are also all well above 3. Among all groups (of characteristics), the Natural, Medical, Agricultural or Veterinary Sciences group (NAT) and the Academics group (ACA), seem to have the strongest opinions with averages of 4.02 and 4.00 respectively, while the Engineering group (ENG) seems to have the weakest opinions with an average of 3.46. Moreover, for the whole sample (see last column) question 33 (Frontier research can lead to new developments of technological systems, regrettably finding direct use in the production of new military weapons to destroy and kill) has a mean of 4.00, indicating a very strong agreement between the respondents and the positions related to the question.

Discussion

The question that arises is thus: Can science be trusted? The answer to this question is a resounding yes, but only if the scientific method used purely relies on empirical evidence with correct data and analysis, and it is revised when new evidence is acquired. Science, like all other aspects of human creation for that matter, cannot escape the misbehavior of the negative characteristics of human nature. Regrettably, it seems unavoidable that strong interventions will not cease to exist from the highest levels, be they political, industrial, military or religious, to the lowest ones such as scientists submissive to conservatism, premature scientific decisions, editor policies and other.

It is, fortunately or unfortunately, that external factors may act positively or negatively on the objectivity of Science. Such factors that have been examined here are (i) research funding, policy makers and industry, (ii) journal editors, (iii) dogma, (iv) theories declared as conspiracies, (v) mutual interests in Academia, (vi) control of knowledge, cover ups and war superiority.

To check to what extent the scientific community shares the expressed positions an anonymous questionnaire with 106 responds from scientists in 11 countries, was analyzed. The average of all mean scores for the whole sample was 3.62, in a Likert scale of 1–5 (‘1’ meaning strong disagreement and ‘5’ strong agreement). This score is well above 3, indicating that the participants are largely in line with the expressed positions of the present paper. In addition, the averages of the individual characteristics (such as gender, age, scientific status, scientific field) were also all above 3.42. Among all groups (of characteristics), the Arts & Humanities or Social Sciences group (ART) and the Academics group (ACA) seem to have the strongest opinions with averages of 3.98 and 3.81 respectively.

One could claim that the results discussed above point to the specific respondents’ beliefs, not necessarily representing the consensus of the scientific community, as the sample was not large enough nor specifically aimed at particular scientific groups. Inversely one could claim that “threats” to objectivity of Science are in a way confirmed, and that the scientific community is aware of the problem. But, as clearly stated in the Introduction, the goal here was to see how the scientific community at large perceives such matters.

It must be noted that, right from the beginning, the questionnaire was not meant to be a global and complete tool of answering the predefined subject. This would be a colossal task that could not be fulfilled in the framework of the present study. Such a task could be a future step of a more multi-dimensional project.

Concluding, one suggestion would be to seriously look into the subject of ‘conspiracy theory’, because in the end it may be another propaganda tool invented to silence serious scientists from expressing educated opinions in scientific journals that could trigger a healthy discussion on an important subject.

Finally, looking into the literature, the results of the present study enhance the results of several other studies. In particular, regarding research funding, policy makers and industry (factor (i) with mean 3.50/5), Pachter et al. (2007), who reported a presidential task force established by the American Psychological Association (APA) in 2003, concluded that corporate funding can pose challenges that can affect the integrity of APA and individual psychologists. Also, Hottenrott and Thorwarth (2011), who analyzed a sample of 678 professors at 46 higher education institutions in Germany, showed that industry funding of a professor’s research resulted in lower publication records both qualitatively and quantitatively, thus leading to lower knowledge sharing.

Regarding journal editors (factor (ii) with mean 3.58/5), Kerr et al. (1977), who surveyed reviewers for management and social science journals, concluded that an author's good reputation results in higher probability of acceptance, as acknowledged by 30% of the reviewers. Spencer et al. (1986), through a psycholinguistic analysis, concluded that 40% of the reports studied contained a significant amount of emotional persuasions and unsubstantiated comments, indicating intrusion and prejudice during the review process. Simon et al. (1986) reported that 54% of the complaints of rejected papers’ authors of a specific journal was about the incompetency of its reviewers. Fanelli (2009), through a systematic review of 21 surveys and meta-analysis of 18 surveys, found that 36% of scientists admitted questionable research practices, including a 2% of using fabricated/falsified/modified data.

Regarding theories declared as conspiracies (factor (iv) with mean 3.45/5), Oliver and Woods (2014), who used data from a 2013 online-survey of 1351 adults, reported that 49% of Americans agree with at least 1 medical conspiracy theory and 18% agree with 3 or more. Mancosu et al. (2017), who used data coming from a 2016 survey of a sample of 3027 Italians on the extent of diffusion of conspiracy theories, concluded that 58–74% of the sample believed in a certain extent to 1 or more of 4 conspiracy theories posed to them.

Regarding mutual interests in Academia (factor (v) with mean 3.74/5), Krimsky et al. (1996), who examined a sample of 789 articles published in 1992, found a 34% of articles with the first or last author having a financial interest in the described research.

Conclusions

One could claim that all matters arising from problematic situations in the factors addressed in the current study can be eventually overcome and real Science will always prevail through a sort of self-correcting nature of Science, which is probably a more important principle than some initial bias on the part of individual scientists. But is this really so? Experience has indicated that this is not a panacea or at least partly sufficient. In any case the above-mentioned practice hinders the rapid advancement of Science.

So, what can be done? The answer is difficult, but  an important step is to turn education toward creating and expanding a student’s critical abilities more than any other ability. Moreover, nothing should be taken for granted—especially under the influence of powerful Mass Media (TV, radio, internet)—and no definite opinion should be formed unless one is spherically informed about the matter whose validity is thoroughly and independently checked. Different answers can be reached, depending on one’s idiosyncrasy, understanding and personal experience.