THE GREAT ACADEMIC HOAX

Bret Weinstein Speaks

How Research Used to Be Performed

Consensus used to be a dirty word in the sciences. When a study was published, people in the same area would rerun the studies, using their own populations, assumptions and methodologies. If new studies confirmed the first study, the conclusion was considered valid…for now. One thing anyone who has worked in the sciences knows—our knowledge now is likely to be upended in a few years. In the late ‘70’s, DNA that didn’t specifically code for a protein was considered to be “nonsense DNA.” It is now understood to be integral to controlling cell functions and protein production. Everything changes. Science is never “settled.” One Cal professor told us bluntly, “I’m going to replace your ignorance with misinformation.”

When I was studying genetics, we didn’t settle on one right answer unless it had been validated by others. And when it mattered, we would simultaneously try out multiple approaches/theories, such as in the Manhattan Project.

No one took offense: this is how research works whether in the hard sciences or the social sciences.

What’s Happening Now

Dr. Bret Weinstein, one-time evolutionary biology professor at Evergreen State College, and now author, podcaster and speaker, offered several sessions and a panel at FreedomFest 2025. The sessions offered up a new critique of our university system calling out the major problems that he sees with the research taking place now.

Though most of us aren’t aware of it, what I outlined above no longer happens in the sciences, and even those who try and fail to repeat experiments are often called out as frauds. There can be consequences if the researcher’s methods are shown to be deficient, but it can take multiple failures to even be caught. And most people just aren’t looking; studies are accepted as fact. In the hard sciences, once something has been shown to be “true,” it is now taken at face value, even when later data doesn’t uphold the conclusions. “Climate science” is an excellent example, particularly when you consider the costly, life-impacting consequences of believing theories that have not held up to real-world experiences. The models used have been shown to be completely useless in predicting future climate, but they are still being used.

I saw it also in the AIDS research, where a contrarian, Dr. Peter Duesberg, was basically shut out of the conversation when he pointed out the flaws in the methodology and conclusions others reached. Anthony Fauci was a leader in this area of disinformation. If you’d like an interesting read, Duesberg’s book, “Inventing the AIDS Virus,” is excellent, even for non-scientists.

You don’t even have to counter someone’s else’s work to get shunned. Weinstein spoke out about a modification of a school tradition—the Day of Absence, where Blacks met off campus to discuss issues and how to make the campus more comfortable for them. The change was to insist all White students also leave campus to attend a mandated class. He had also objected to DEI hiring, which led to massive student protests against him by the students. The attack and aggressive tactics against free speech led Weinstein to sue the college for $3.85MM because the college didn’t protect employees from being verbally and in writing attacked. The settlement only netted $500K, and both he and his wife were forced out of their positions.

Apparently, colleges insist everyone follow in lockstep with whatever mandated positions and theories deemed to be correct. While this is annoying and contrary to education, it can be deadly when you include scientific research into this kind of censorship. No one should prioritize consensus over truth. The real world doesn’t work this way. Weinstein believes that research and education should be separated, feeling that there is no way we can easily change the cancellation of divergent views on campus at this time. But maybe, outside of the university environment, scientists can once again strive to challenge orthodoxy, retest hypotheses and get closer to useful answers. Something has to change.

Why It Matters

When orthodoxy and consensus rule, we make little real progress, which could mean that people suffer or die when they might not have needed to. Too quickly, pushed by political considerations, scientists decided that HIV was the cause of AIDS. If they found antibodies, they put people, including children, on harsh treatments that made healthy people sick. We’re spending a bundle on “climate science,” but the reality is that if we really got rid of a lot of CO², all our plants and trees would die and we would starve. We waste time and money on bad science.

I remember a published genetics paper that referenced “the hungry tiger enzyme” to solve the problem the author had studied. Of course, the enzyme doesn’t actually exist. This paper had no real value, except to point out another cellular phenomenon we don’t understand.

Another example, in the soft sciences, was the move to crazy math educational models and the elimination of phonics in teaching reading. Now, we have kids that struggle with reading and math; data shows that in many places, almost a majority cannot read or do math at grade level, and yet, are allowed to graduate. This dooms their future. It’s malpractice. And yet, consensus caused this.

Scientists need the humility that debate fosters. We are never right; we are just closer to the truth than the last experiment, assuming the study was done with few invalid assumptions and a valid protocol. It’s not about being liked. It’s about doing it right. Peer review is only as good as the peers providing it.

What to Consider

Weinstein doesn’t believe we can fix this, as long as it is too easy to drive out those that challenge the orthodoxy. You have to subscribe to the social environment popular in schools today, which is a highly progressive set of notions that have no proven validity. Otherwise, you have besmirched “the cathedral” of education and no longer belong there. Challenge is seen as heresy; the educational world as a church. This is why people have to write social justice statements to get hired and interviews are really to suss out whether you “fit in” rather than to test your qualifications. It fits in with the Marxist philosophy of the “ins” and the “outs.” Looking at any socialist or communist society and compliance is key to survival.

I am a little more hopeful. Alternative universities exist and, with the ability to offer online education, more will come. However, the funding problem will remain. As long as government funding is key to research, only socially popular problems will be funded, and then, only those complying with the “social order” will get money. One thing I’ve seen, and it is only small scale now, is that small scientific companies are partnering with schools to take a good idea developed in student labs and getting it out to the market. There’s active work in this area at UC Berkeley, and real cures have come out of it. But still, as long as society prizes compliance and consensus over innovation, we’ll be stuck.