I think that the authors of most papers in the biological sciences will at least consult with a statistician. My experience has been that many of these issues are simply hard to reason through and our conventional common statistical language doesn't work very well.

Couple this with the scientist going to the statistican basically saying "what can I claim with some kind of plausibility", rather than being indifferent to whether the result is interesting or groundbreaking or would make a good clickbait headline, and it's hard to figure out what's true.