How so? The fraction of academic science that is applied to anything, anywhere, with clearly identifiable impact is both a tiny fraction of academic science, and also often detrimental quality of impact.
Pretty much every industry functions on a foundation of basic scientific knowledge discovered in academic labs, run by honest people trying to understand the natural world.
Fraud happens. Bad theories happen. The slow turn of scientific wheels takes centuries to crush them but it will always win. Profit doesn't turn those wheels. Our entire modern lifestyle is the impact.
Thats not true entirely. There is research, with huge impacts and the money leveraging- keeps it brutally honest. Nothing makes it out of a lab and into a fab, without certainty of the method working at least in lab conditions reproduceable. There are many billions, but not that many billions.
> nothing makes it out of a lab and into a fab, without certainty of the method working at least in lab conditions reproducible.
The article describes multiple full clinical drug trials both completed (inconclusive==can't prove harm, effect is so small that benefit cannot be excluded) and ongoing that are fundamentally built on the fabricated results which literally do represent many billions of private investment.
Ultimately research falsification is a con game, and you seem to have faith in something magical about "money leveraging" that smokes out cons. I do think shit eventually hits the fan in the market since reality affects the market, but it's not because the market is more rigorous than "science". Ultimately, investors are not experts and the are listening to the same people who do "peer review" and didn't notice (or ignored) the fraud in the first place.
