After decades. The only reason there is a "scandal" is because it is medical. There is shit like this in almost every scientific field holding back progress.
It sounds like what science needs then is a cultural shift to supporting and funding more controversial ideas, and being more content with dissent. Maybe we need to make a more intentional effort to fund the contrarians with the understanding that maybe they're dead wrong, but maybe giving them some ammunition will give us a head start down the correct path.
The US built the atom bomb so fast because we tried multiple approaches at once. We should approach basic science the same way. (In fact, writing that is seems obvious, because I guess I assume science is "supposed" to work that way anyway.)
Also, I dislike the idea that science doesn't like controversial ideas or dissent. Yes there is group think, yes there are cabals, but in general, if you find weird results, you publish and they get discussed. What else do people want to come out of the proposal controversial ideas? Controversial doesn't make it automatically good
Otherwise, your comment reads to me "you have to be careful with this racist euphemism, it can refer to two different attempts of racist pseudoscience trying to appear legit"
In an earlier submission I made, Peter Thiel, etc discuss how global research is changing in general:
“Eton-nationalism” is what we have in the UK at the moment.
I would say that the latest Alzheimer's drug failure finally broke the camel's back. While NIH will tolerate groupthink indefinitely, biopharma eventually wants a payback.
I suspect biopharma pulling funding and causing the amyloid people to suddenly lose clout is more to blame for the come-to-Jesus party in Alzheimer's land.
And science is not supposed to be immune to this, the culture of science is supposed to uncover things like this/errors like this as part of a process. The truth has a habit of shining through if you are encouraged to keep asking questions and follow up on them.
And again, not saying the system is perfect or that calling things out is enough. But too often comments like this get turned anti-science or "we can't improve anything, slow decay is inevitable" cynicism (or FUD if you want to be less charitable)