As someone with a background in biomedical science, I’ve often had friends or juniors come to me, eyes bright with excitement, saying they want to go into biomedical research. They’re full of enthusiasm, the kind that comes with a bit of naivety. Part of me wants to share the gritty truth, the things no one warns you about in this field. But I hold back, not wanting to seem like the cynical one bursting their bubble before they’ve even begun. Still, another part of me feels they deserve the whole picture. After all, if they’re going to bet their life on science, they should know what’s really at stake. Unreliable by Csaba Szabó is the book I wish I’d had to hand them. It captures everything, both the rewarding and the raw sides of biomedical science.

In this book, you won’t find polished success stories or tales of groundbreaking discoveries. Szabó pulls back the curtain to reveal the reality of research: the relentless hustle for funding, the career pressures, and the endless competition. It’s a sobering glimpse into life in the lab, backed by statistics and personal stories that breathe life into every claim. For anyone thinking about stepping into academia, especially biomedical research, this book is a must-read.

I appreciated Unreliable for its systematic, unfiltered honesty about the field. It doesn’t shy away from the high stakes or the constant chase for grants. Nor does it ignore the darker side: the ethical risks and the ways pressure can drive people to cut corners or, worse, engage in fraud. In some cases, careers and even lives are on the line. It’s a cautionary reminder that going into science for the wrong reasons, whether for fame or job security, can have serious consequences.

This book isn’t just for aspiring scientists. It’s a wake-up call for those already deep in biomedical research and a revealing read for the general public whose tax dollars fund these endeavors. It urges readers to reflect on their motivations and to see the bigger picture. We all deserve to understand the tougher realities behind the breakthroughs we so often celebrate.

Unreliable serves as both a cautionary tale and a call to action. It’s a reminder that while science promises discovery, it also demands resilience, integrity, and a willingness to face hard truths. Perhaps by confronting these realities, the next generation of scientists can work toward a system that better supports both science and scientists.

Summary

Choosing Biomedical Science as a Life Path

Many who enter biomedical science do so out of a deep fascination with discovery, hoping their work will lead to breakthroughs in medicine. They start with dreams of contributing to human health, but the field requires not only passion but also a readiness to tackle complex, seemingly impractical problems. This work demands intense dedication, even if it sometimes feels like the discoveries are only appreciated by other scientists.

The Power of Funding

Securing grants is central to research, as most institutions provide little funding to support independent projects. Grants don’t just fund research; they bring in additional money, known as overhead, which is vital for institutions. However, writing grant proposals is laborious and requires skills quite different from those needed to conduct actual science. Plus, the chances of success are low, leaving many researchers stuck in poorly funded labs, even at well-endowed institutions.

Navigating Bureaucratic Hurdles

For researchers from abroad, immigration bureaucracy is a major burden, taking time away from science. It adds to the stress without improving work-life balance or productivity, hindering scientists from fully focusing on their research.

Replication Studies, A Missing Priority

Replicating past studies is rare in science. Grant agencies don’t favor studies that aim to confirm previous findings, even though proving some results wrong could save time and resources. Unlike groundbreaking discoveries, replication efforts don’t attract awards or recognition, despite the fact that they could stop others from chasing false leads. Paradoxically, some Nobel Prizes have been awarded for findings later disproven or for treatments found to be harmful.

Biomed Research and Technology Waves

Biomedical research is heavily influenced by emerging technologies and new methodologies, which drive waves of discovery. However, progress is inconsistent. While some findings are biologically valid, they may be limited to certain contexts. For instance, what’s true in a cell culture might not hold up in an entire organism, and animal studies don’t always translate to humans. This uneven progress sometimes makes the field seem unreliable.

The Replication Crisis and Its Impact

The replication crisis extends beyond wasted resources; it also erodes trust in biomedical research among the public, policymakers, and the pharmaceutical industry. Companies investing in university research often find that foundational studies aren’t replicable, leading them to abandon clinical development programs after costly setbacks.

Signs of Progress

There’s a shift toward emphasizing replication, with more studies now focused on verifying earlier findings. However, errors still happen due to technical issues, from faulty materials and equipment to complex calculations and simple human mistakes. Variability in experimental practices remains a challenge.

The Fraud Triangle

Scientific fraud often arises from three factors: motivation (financial or existential pressure), rationalization (justifying unethical actions due to outside pressures), and opportunity (circumstances that make fraud feasible). Strengthening checks and balances within the system can help address these issues.

Approaching Scientific Papers with Skepticism

It’s important to read scientific papers critically. News articles may exaggerate findings, so always check the journal where the study was published, the time between submission and acceptance, and whether other studies have confirmed the findings. Carefully evaluate study design aspects like randomization and power analysis. Breakthrough claims, particularly around topics like anti-aging, should be met with caution. Review articles, too, can be misleading, as some may rely on ghostwritten content that presents a biased view, especially when funded by pharmaceutical companies.

Who Can Drive Reform?

1. Scientists
   • Not everyone is suited for a career in science. The focus should be on quality, not quantity, and on training scientists with an emphasis on collaboration, data integrity, and reproducibility. Science as a career track should include alternatives that go beyond traditional academia.
2. Institutions
   • Universities and research centers need to rethink their reliance on research as a funding source. They should provide adequate support for scientists without pressuring them to publish at any cost, and they must improve their data handling practices.
3. Grant Agencies
   • Funding bodies should adjust their approach, collaborating more closely with researchers and considering the societal impact of the projects they fund.
4. Publishing Industry
   • Journals should adopt higher standards for data integrity and include replication as part of the publication process. Establishing systems for misconduct detection and reporting would help improve trust in published research.
5. Public and Government
   • Public engagement in science is essential, and governments must acknowledge the systemic issues within the research environment. Incremental changes won’t be enough—significant reforms are necessary to break the cycle of flawed incentives and promote a healthier research landscape.

---

Author: Csaba Szabó

Publication date: 4 March 2025

Number of pages: 336 pages

---