How is monetization the problem? The biggest issues with non replicable science are all in academia which is grant funded. Corporate labs don't seem to have unusually big issues with non replicable research. Obviously, add if they couldn't replicate it they can't monetize it.
Tobacco funding research to prove smoking is healthy.
> The biggest issues with non replicable science are all in academia which is grant funded.
Yes, that was his other point, politically charged topics are bound to create bad science. So things related to poverty, intelligence, gender, race, education etc.
Medical research, especially pre-clinical, stands shoulder to shoulder with social psychology in terms of replication rates. Wiki has a brief paragraph on it on their replication crisis page [1], but this [2] page does a far better job of conveying and citing all sorts of interesting data and studies.
The pathway to profit for medicine is getting the FDA to approve your drug. This should only happen if the drug works, but the way the FDA determines that is by the data and studies you give them. Well at least in theory, there's also complete nonsense like aduhelm where the FDA even approved a drug their own medical panel concluded didn't work, leading to mass protest resignations. [3] That's probably an argument against shenanigans (why even bother?), but I still think it's relevant just to emphasize how dysfunctional our medical regulatory system has become.
