What Does it Mean for the Public to "Trust Science"?

For the second time in its history, Scientific American has endorsed a political candidate. They do not see or do not care to see the issues with that. We do.

What does it indeed mean to have a society that "trusts science"? The phrase is invoked everywhere, from policy debates to media headlines, and it implies a near-universal reverence for scientific institutions like the NIH, NSF, and NASA. Yet, beneath this notion of trust lies a more fundamental question: Who controls the science we trust? When we say we trust science, are we placing that trust in the systematic process of discovery and data-driven inquiry, or are we entrusting the institutions that direct which questions are asked, which research is funded, and which therapies are prioritized?

The truth is that the vast coffers of these institutions can bias scientific progress by determining what science gets done. This bias doesn’t stem from the scientific method itself but from a systemic entanglement of research funding with political, financial, and institutional interests. As a result, science—particularly in biomedicine—often prioritizes profitable therapies over those that have the most significant positive clinical impact. This creates an unspoken but dangerous precedent: therapies that offer individualized, personalized treatment or those with fewer financial incentives are underexplored.

We live in an era where the public often assumes that the science they hear about is the science that will most benefit them. However, that assumption is often misguided. Effective, low-cost therapies for chronic conditions or precision medicine tailored to individual genetic profiles are frequently ignored. This neglect persists not because they lack scientific merit but because they don’t align with the financial imperatives that dominate research funding. As a result, individualized medicine, driven by prediction science, remains underfunded and underutilized.

The entanglement of funding with profit-driven motives and political narratives creates an entropic loss within the scientific system itself—a progressive decline in innovation, creativity, and analyzability. Science becomes less about discovery and more about maintaining a profitable status quo. As public trust is placed more in institutions, these non-linear, non-static forces skew the trajectory of scientific inquiry away from objective, open-ended discovery and towards financial and political reinforcement.

This is where the problem lies: trusting science in today’s world too often means trusting the agendas of the government agencies that wield control over research funding. Figures like Anthony Fauci and organizations such as the NIH have weaponized funding to reinforce specific narratives, silencing scientists or institutions that might otherwise pursue novel but less profitable areas of research. The threat is real: universities and research hospitals face the possibility of losing all funding if they dare to question these narratives.

If the public truly wants to trust science, then the solution lies in reclaiming control over what is prioritized and researched. This means prioritizing studies that offer effective therapies in biomedicine, especially those with significant positive clinical impact that aren’t necessarily the most profitable. Prediction science—the ability to use scientific knowledge to predict outcomes or states of things - is particularly well-suited to biomedical research. Via Prediction Science, we can tailor treatments to individuals based on their genetics, environment, and lifestyle become central to this effort. Personalized, precision medicine promises better patient outcomes, but it requires a shift in how we approach scientific funding and how we define success in biomedical research.

At its core, science is a method, a way of knowing, and not a tool for political or financial gain. As we rethink the future of scientific inquiry, we must create funding models that prioritize the public good, not just profit margins. This means supporting therapies and research that offer maximum benefit to the patient, not maximum benefit to shareholders. Only then can society genuinely begin to trust science again—not because of the institutions that control it, but because of the integrity of the process itself.

Regulatory Capture Yields Entrenched Priorities

Government institutions like the NIH, NSF, and NASA have long been heralded as the pillars of scientific progress, but their influence on what research gets done—and how—is anything but neutral. By controlling the lion’s share of funding, they dictate the agenda for scientific inquiry. While this structure has facilitated advancements, it has also introduced deep systemic bias, particularly in fields like biomedicine, where profit and political influence are entrenched.

At its core, government funding tends to prioritize research that is safe, predictable, and profitable. This structure naturally favors large pharmaceutical projects or politically expedient research, leaving less room for innovative, less profitable, but clinically significant therapies. What’s often sidelined are studies that may not yield the highest financial return but could drastically improve clinical outcomes, especially in areas like chronic disease management or individualized medicine. This very research holds the potential to reshape healthcare for the better.

The profit-driven bias is especially apparent in the type of therapies that get fast-tracked. For example, conditions with massive patient populations, like cardiovascular disease, often attract substantial funding because of the market potential for new drugs or treatments. But conditions that affect fewer people—or those that require more personalized, predictive treatment—are typically overlooked. This creates a skewed methodological landscape where precision medicine, which could tailor treatments to an individual’s unique genetic makeup or lifestyle, is underfunded and undervalued.

Moreover, the structure of government funding fosters a conservative, non-linear dynamic in research. Agencies like the NIH tend to favor projects that produce incremental advancements rather than groundbreaking breakthroughs, as the latter often come with greater risk. This conservative approach limits the exploration of non-static, adaptive therapies that respond to the evolving understanding of complex diseases like cancer or neurological disorders. Instead, funding flows to established ideas that promise safe returns—both financially and politically.

One of the most damaging aspects of this system is the weaponization of funding. Figures like Anthony Fauci have exemplified how funding can be wielded not as a tool for discovery but as a mechanism for enforcing narratives. Universities, research hospitals, and individual scientists are often pressured to align with prevailing ideologies or risk losing vital resources. Dissenting voices—those who challenge mainstream narratives or propose less conventional research pathways—are often marginalized. For many institutions, the cost of going against the grain is the loss of all funding, a death sentence in the competitive world of scientific research.

This creates a feedback loop where institutions become increasingly risk-averse, producing research that reinforces existing narratives rather than challenging them. As a result, science becomes less dynamic, less creative, and ultimately less effective at addressing the most pressing health issues. Innovative research into holistic, individualized approaches to healthcare—for instance, exploring the interaction between genetics, lifestyle, and environment to predict and prevent diseases—receives far less attention than it deserves.

A particularly alarming consequence of this funding bias is the entropic loss of scientific diversity. The entropy of mathematics demonstrates how analyzability declines as complexity is reduced for elegance. It so too does the creativity of science decline when political and financial motives restrict research agendas. Via a beauracratic nonlinearity, science becomes a boring, linear, tightly constrained system, one that reinforces established power structures rather than pushing the boundaries of human knowledge.

Consider this: how many groundbreaking therapies have gone unexplored because they lacked the immediate financial incentive to secure funding? How many potentially transformative discoveries have been left on the cutting room floor because they didn’t fit within the narrow parameters of government-approved research agendas?

I reject the notion that the goal should be that the public should “trust science”. They should not. They should be skeptical and reward successes that lead to new knowledge, that, in the clinical realm, reduces human pain and suffering. This requires that the public be truly scientifically literate - they cannot even trust the process of discovery—a process that can only thrive when freed from the constraints of profit and politics - as it has been distorted and manipulated in “official studies” that “prove” (ahem) vaccine safety.

Via this Second Enlightenment, we should embrace a fundamental shift in how we fund research. The public’s interest should come first - they are the ultimate stakeholders, who may benefit or pay the cost with their lives. It means prioritizing studies that maximize clinical impact rather than profit, focusing on therapies that individualize treatments and embrace the complexity of human health. It also means removing the threat of funding cuts as a narrative enforcement measure so that dissent and diversity of thought can once again drive scientific progress.

Ultimately, the entanglement of government-driven funding with politics and profit does more than bias science that gets done; it limits what science is done in the first place. Science thrives on curiosity, on the willingness to ask uncomfortable questions and explore unknowns. As long as research is dictated by financial gain and political agenda, we will never fully unlock the potential of science to improve human health.

The future of science depends on our ability to build new, adaptive funding models—ones that reward innovation, risk-taking, and, most importantly, a commitment to objective, patient-centered research. These models must break free from the static feedback loop of government control, allowing science to become the dynamic, evolving force it is meant to be.

The Need for Independent Scientific Institutions

To break the stranglehold of government-driven science and its entanglement with profit motives, we must recognize the need for independent scientific institutions that are free from the financial and political pressures that distort research priorities. These institutions can reclaim the integrity of science by reorienting research toward effective therapies, particularly those with significant clinical impact, regardless of their profitability.

When IPAK was founded in 2015, it wasn’t just a reaction to the bias in scientific funding—it was an active solution to the systemic problems inherent in government-controlled research agendas. The very creation of IPAK was a statement that science must be independent, objective, and focused on serving the public good rather than the interests of political narratives or pharmaceutical profits. The mission of IPAK, along with similar efforts such as those in the Science Department at Children's Health Defense (CHD), and the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, and the considerable output from the McCullough Foundation, is to establish a new foundation for scientific integrity—one where research is funded based on its potential to improve health outcomes rather than its ability to generate revenue.

These independent institutions are not just theoretical; they are a real force in righting the listing ship of Science. They a necessity in today’s landscape of biomedical research. Without them, the scientific community will continue to be shackled by funding structures that privilege political and financial interests over true innovation. By building and supporting independent research entities, we can create a larger, more objective system that fosters innovative, integrative, and non-linear approaches to scientific inquiry rather than the static, profit-driven linearity that dominates today’s institutions.

But how do we achieve this? It starts with scientists taking ownership of their work and banding together to create independent organizations. The process is neither quick nor easy, but it is possible—and IPAK is living proof of this. By setting up independent scientific journals, securing alternative funding models, and establishing independent review boards, scientists can free themselves from the constraints of traditional funding sources and start to define the future of research. These organizations will become the crucible for innovative therapies—those that would otherwise be left behind in the race for profitability.

IPAK’s approach, with its independent (available to others as a service) institutional review board (IRB) and its independent journal (open access), is just one model. Other institutions must follow suit, adhering to practices and principles for ensuring scientific rigor, transparency, and independence. This independence is crucial, particularly in biomedicine, where effective, personalized treatments are often overlooked in favor of more profitable, one-size-fits-all solutions. These new institutions can prioritize prediction science and precision medicine—fields that promise to revolutionize healthcare but have struggled to receive sufficient attention in traditional funding landscapes.

By creating independent institutions, scientists can also reclaim control of the research agenda, ensuring that studies are patient-centered and driven by the needs of individuals rather than the broader market. This will enable a focus on therapies that are adaptive, holistic, and personalized, such as treatments that target chronic diseases through the integration of genetic, lifestyle, and environmental factors. These therapies, which reflect the non-static and evolving nature of human health, require funding models that are flexible and adaptive—the kind that only independent institutions can provide.

In parallel, there is an urgent need to educate the public on the importance of independent science. The public often assumes that government funding equals impartiality, but this is far from the truth. Public engagement is essential in this shift towards independent funding models, and it begins with helping the public understand that their support for independent institutions is an investment in the future of healthcare. Institutions like IPAK-EDU serve as a bridge between the public and objective science, ensuring that people can directly support research that prioritizes their health over profits.

Public funding models that crowdsource support for independent research projects can empower everyday citizens to participate in science in ways that were previously unimaginable. This opens the door to a new era of scientific inquiry, where the public becomes a direct stakeholder in the success of research that is free from the distortions of governmental and corporate agendas.

Ultimately, building independent scientific institutions is about reclaiming scientific freedom. Freedom from political narratives. Freedom from profit-driven priorities. Freedom to explore the questions that matter most and to pursue treatments that offer real, measurable impact on patient health. By removing the chains of governmental influence and financial bias, we create space for a genuinely dynamic, evolving science—one that works for the people, not the politics or the profits.

The groundwork for this seismic vision is already happening. Institutions like IPAK are showing the way, and it is time for others to join. Scientists everywhere must take up the mantle, joining established objective research institutions, or even creating their own independent research institutions, free from the biases and constraints that hold back true innovation. But scientists should only expect skepticism and praise for good work - never trust - from a scientifically literate public. The public’s trust in science means they likely are not trusting bona fide science in the first place.

Taking the Case to the Public: Directly Funding Objective Science

To truly break free from the entanglement of government-driven research agendas, the public must be brought into the fold as active participants in the future of scientific inquiry. Direct public engagement is critical to reshaping the landscape of scientific research, as it provides an opportunity to build a model of science that is not beholden to corporate profits or political agendas. Independent scientific institutions, like IPAK, have already taken significant strides toward this goal, but the next phase of the movement requires a broad, collective effort to educate the public and secure their investment in objective science.

One of the most persistent misconceptions is that government-funded science is somehow more trustworthy or impartial. The reality, as we have explored, is that government funding often reinforces systemic bias and restricts scientific inquiry to what is deemed safe, profitable, or politically expedient. To change this, the public must be educated about the limitations of government-controlled research and the opportunities that independent science presents. Public literacy in science is essential, as a well-informed populace can make critical decisions about which research initiatives deserve funding and attention.

This is where crowdsourcing models come into play. Independent institutions, free from the constraints of governmental influence, can tap into public funding through models that allow everyday people to contribute directly to scientific projects. These models empower citizens to become stakeholders in the success of research that truly prioritizes their health and well-being. By supporting therapies and treatments based on clinical efficacy rather than profit potential, the public can help steer the direction of scientific research in a way that serves human health first.

Imagine a world where the public has direct input into which biomedical studies are funded—where citizens can support research into effective therapies for chronic conditions or contribute to the advancement of precision medicine tailored to individual needs. This type of engagement is not only possible, but it’s already happening in isolated pockets of the scientific community. The challenge now is to scale these efforts and bring them into the mainstream of scientific funding.

In this vision, public-funded science is transparent, patient-centered, and guided by the principle of maximizing positive clinical impact, rather than adhering to narrow profit motives. Independent scientific institutions can serve as the interface between researchers and the public, ensuring that scientific rigor and ethical standards remain intact, while also creating pathways for direct citizen involvement.

To achieve this, we must prioritize the creation of transparent funding mechanisms that are accessible to the public. These could include platforms that allow individuals to contribute to specific research projects, with detailed explanations of how their funds will be used, and what the expected clinical outcomes might be. Corporate research could be funded by a pooled resource of funding but conducted by truly independent scientists who are not allowed to share in the profits of “successful” research studies. Perhaps key studies should be replicated by three such teams. By creating this transparency, we can begin to shift the culture of scientific funding away from opaque governmental processes and towards a model that fosters public trust through accountability.

We also need to prioritize proactive studies on therapies and approaches to health that integrative clinicians know based on real-world data and case studies are likely to bear fruit in terms of reducing human pain and suffering.

Additionally, independent institutions must take the lead in educating the public about the importance of prediction science and precision medicine—fields that hold the potential to transform healthcare by offering personalized treatments based on genetics, lifestyle, and environmental factors. These fields are currently underfunded because they do not fit neatly into the traditional profit-driven research model. However, with public support, individualized medicine can become a cornerstone of the future of healthcare.

As public awareness grows, so too will the demand for alternative funding models that prioritize human health over profits. Institutions like IPAK and Children’s Health Defense are already laying the groundwork for this shift, but they cannot do it alone. Scientists, educators, and public advocates must all work together to promote public involvement in the funding and direction of scientific research. This is how we begin to dismantle the old, biased systems of government funding and replace them with a dynamic, adaptive model that reflects the needs of individuals rather than the interests of corporations or political agendas.

In the long term, this shift towards public-funded, independent science will lead to greater scientific diversity and a resurgence of innovation. Research into therapies that were once sidelined due to lack of financial incentive can be brought to the forefront, and new discoveries can emerge from the non-static, evolving landscape of scientific inquiry. The public, having taken an active role in shaping the direction of science, will be more invested in the outcomes, ensuring that science remains accountable to the people it serves.

In the end, building a public-driven, independent scientific ecosystem is about more than just funding. It’s about restoring the integrity of the scientific process and re-establishing curiosity and creativity as the driving forces behind discovery. By empowering the public to take ownership of scientific research, we create a system that reflects the values of open inquiry, ethical responsibility, and patient-centered care. This is the science that deserves to be trusted—not because of the institutions that control it, but because of the people who support it.

Replacement Models for How We Fund Science

Suppose we are to transform the landscape of scientific inquiry truly. In that case, it is essential to create replacement models for funding science—models that are dynamic, adaptive, and driven by clinical need rather than by the pursuit of profit or political favor. The current system, dominated by government-controlled funding agencies like the NIH and NSF, has entrenched a rigid framework that rewards predictability and financial return, often at the expense of innovation and patient outcomes. Breaking free from this static model requires a shift toward independent, non-linear funding systems that prioritize the public good.

What do these new funding mechanisms look like?

At the core of any replacement funding model is the need for flexibility. Science is not a linear process; it evolves in response to discoveries, failures, and insights. Static funding models, which lock researchers into multi-year projects with fixed goals, do not allow for the kind of dynamic exploration that is essential for breakthroughs, particularly in complex fields like biomedicine. Instead, we need to build funding systems that are responsive to scientific progress, allowing for adaptive adjustments in response to emerging data and shifting priorities.

For example, consider a crowd-based funding platform that allows researchers to seek funding directly from the public for specific stages of their research. If initial results show promise, the project can be re-evaluated and further funded, with full transparency about the data driving these decisions. If the research hits a dead end, resources can be reallocated to other promising projects, preventing the waste of public funds on research that is no longer viable. This model not only incentivizes accountability but also promotes innovation by rewarding projects that show real progress.

In this model, the feedback loop between scientists and funders becomes non-static and non-linear. The public can directly support projects that resonate with them—whether it’s a promising new cancer therapy, precision medicine for chronic diseases, or prediction science for individualized treatments. This kind of distributed funding model bypasses the bureaucratic inertia of traditional funding bodies, where research agendas are often slow to adapt to new discoveries or patient needs.

Private foundations and nonprofit organizations also play a vital role in these new funding models. Unlike government agencies, these groups can be more nimble and targeted in their support of cutting-edge research. For instance, private foundations can fund high-risk, high-reward projects that are often too risky for government grants. This allows scientists to explore innovative, non-linear approaches to Amedical challenges without the fear of losing funding if their work strays too far from the mainstream. Importantly, these foundations can also prioritize therapies with significant clinical impact, regardless of their profitability, ensuring that research is driven by patient outcomes rather than market potential.

The role of corporate involvement in these new models must also be reconsidered. While the influence of for-profit entities on research has often led to biased outcomes, there are ways to encourage responsible corporate involvement that aligns with the public good. For instance, corporations could invest in open-source research or fund pre-competitive collaborations, where scientists work together to solve foundational problems before developing proprietary solutions. These kinds of partnerships can leverage the resources of the private sector while maintaining the transparency and accountability necessary to protect the integrity of the research.

Another promising direction for replacement models is the development of community-funded research collectives. These are grassroots organizations that pool resources from local communities, patient advocacy groups, and citizen scientists to fund research that directly addresses the needs of those communities. For example, a community collective might fund research into genetic predispositions or environmental factors affecting their population, allowing for the development of tailored, personalized treatments. These collectives not only democratize science but also create a sense of ownership and engagement among the public, ensuring that research priorities are aligned with real-world health challenges.

To support these new funding models, independent scientific institutions like IPAK and similar organizations must continue to lead by example. They have already begun to build frameworks that challenge the traditional hierarchies of funding and research. By developing independent peer-review processes, creating open-access journals, and establishing transparent governance structures, these institutions are setting the stage for a more equitable, accountable model of scientific inquiry. Other organizations should follow their lead, establishing new systems of funding that decentralize control and empower scientists and the public to co-create the future of research.

In all of these models, transparency and adaptability are the keys to success. Funders—whether they are individual citizens, nonprofit organizations, or corporate entities—must have clear, open access to the data and progress of the research they support. Meanwhile, scientists must be empowered to pursue the most promising lines of inquiry, without fear of losing funding if their work diverges from pre-established goals. This distributed, dynamic, evolving relationship between scientists and funders will create a science ecosystem that is responsive to patient needs, open to discovery, and capable of breakthroughs that were previously unimaginable in the restrictive world of government-controlled research.

Ultimately, the future of science depends on our willingness to reimagine how research is funded. The replacement models we build today will determine whether science continues to be shaped by profit and political interest or whether it becomes the dynamic, patient-centered force it is meant to be. By fostering adaptive, transparent funding systems that prioritize clinical impact and innovation, we can unlock the true potential of scientific discovery and deliver the therapies and treatments that people need most.

Principles for a New Era of Science

To realize the full potential of these replacement models for funding science, we must establish a set of guiding principles that reorient the practice of scientific inquiry away from the rigid structures of profit-driven or politically entangled research. The future of science demands a new ethos, built on transparency, adaptability, and a commitment to the public good. These principles will not only shape how research is funded, but also how science is conducted, communicated, and held accountable.

1. Open Questions and Rational Discourse

At the heart of all scientific inquiry is the ability to ask open questions. Science thrives on the freedom to explore unknowns and challenge assumptions. Yet, in today’s environment, dissenting voices are often silenced in the pursuit of consensus or to maintain politically expedient narratives. This stifling of debate creates a closed system where only certain lines of inquiry are pursued, while others are dismissed outright.

To foster true innovation, rational discourse must be encouraged. Researchers must have the freedom to question prevailing theories, to propose alternative hypotheses, and to engage in constructive debates with their peers. These discussions should not be seen as threats but as necessary steps in the evolution of knowledge. Open inquiry, driven by evidence and debate, will lead to more robust conclusions and ultimately, to better science.

Moreover, public engagement in these debates should be welcomed. Science cannot be confined to academic circles alone. In the digital age, more people than ever have access to scientific information, and they are hungry for understanding. By creating platforms where scientists can engage with the public—answering questions, explaining their research, and addressing concerns—we can build a culture of transparency that strengthens public trust and encourages shared ownership of scientific progress.

2. Deweaponization of Retraction and the End of ‘Debunking’

The practice of retraction—designed as a safeguard to remove flawed or falsified studies—has become a tool for narrative enforcement in today’s research landscape. Retractions are often used to discredit valid but controversial research, especially when it contradicts entrenched scientific or political views. This misuse of retraction damages the integrity of science by prematurely discarding research that might otherwise contribute to the evolution of understanding.

In the new era of science, the goal should be to deweaponize retraction. Retractions should occur based on clear, transparent criteria, and the process should always allow for open discourse about why a study was retracted. Science, by its nature, is an iterative process, and it’s essential to recognize that early research may not always get everything right. This doesn’t mean it should be erased from the record but rather contextualized and critically examined. This critical process is essential for moving the field forward.

Similarly, the notion of ‘debunking’ has become problematic. Used as a catch-all term to dismiss dissenting research, debunking often shuts down scientific exploration rather than fostering dialogue. Instead of quickly labeling research as "debunked," scientists should engage with the data and methods, critiquing them in a respectful, rigorous manner. In this way, the focus can shift back to analyzability rather than dismissing results that challenge established perspectives. Science advances by confronting complexity, not by simplifying it for the sake of convenience.

3. Requiring Data, Not Opinion

One of the most significant principles for a new era of science is the insistence that data, not opinion, drives conclusions. In today’s information-saturated world, opinion too often replaces evidence in public and even academic discourse. Whether through media outlets, policy debates, or social platforms, scientific discussions are frequently diluted by unsubstantiated assertions that carry more weight than they deserve.

The solution is simple but profound: Data must answer data. When questions arise about a particular study or claim, the response should be based on evidence, not rhetoric. Researchers must commit to transparent data sharing, making their methodologies, results, and interpretations open for scrutiny by the broader scientific community and the public. This transparency is essential for fostering trust and ensuring that scientific progress is grounded in empirical truth, not ideological influence.

Furthermore, in this data-driven approach, there must be a commitment to accuracy and precision. Scientific findings should not be overstated for the sake of media attention or political leverage. Instead, researchers should strive for clarity and honesty, presenting their findings in context and acknowledging the limitations of their work. This humility in science will help restore public trust and ensure that decisions—whether in healthcare, policy, or technology—are made based on solid, reliable evidence.

4. Ending the Censorship of Scientists

In recent years, there has been a troubling rise in the censorship of scientists who challenge mainstream narratives. Whether through institutional pressures, social media bans, or the withdrawal of funding, researchers who present alternative perspectives or raise uncomfortable questions are often silenced. This suppression of scientific diversity threatens the very essence of open inquiry and stalls the progress of science.

In the new era of science, censorship must end. Scientists must be free to pursue their research and express their findings without fear of retribution. Institutions, journals, and funding bodies should be committed to protecting scientific freedom, ensuring that dissenting voices are heard and that research is judged on its merits, not on its alignment with the prevailing narrative. Objective debate and constructive criticism should replace attempts to censor or suppress controversial findings.

5. The Separation of Science and Politics

Perhaps the most foundational principle for the future of science is the need to separate science from politics. When science is used as a tool to advance political agendas, its integrity is compromised. Policies that are based on cherry-picked data or biased interpretations undermine the public’s trust in both science and governance. To restore faith in science, it must be free from the influence of political power plays.

This does not mean that science has no role in informing policy—on the contrary, evidence-based policymaking is crucial for addressing many of the challenges we face. However, the process must be transparent, with a clear distinction between the scientific data itself and the political decisions that arise from it. Science should provide the evidence upon which policies are built, but it should not be distorted to serve the interests of any political entity.

In a world where science and politics are separated, science can return to its rightful role as a neutral arbiter of truth. This will enable open discourse, creative problem-solving, and innovative research, free from the constraints of political bias. It will also ensure that data, not ideology, drives decision-making in the critical areas of public health, environmental stewardship, and technological advancement.

These principles for a new era of science are more than ideals; they are the necessary foundation for rebuilding trust in the scientific process. By fostering open inquiry, rigorous debate, and evidence-based decision-making, we can create a future where science serves the public interest and continues to push the boundaries of what is possible. These principles must guide not only how research is funded, but how it is conducted, communicated, and integrated into society. Only then can we fully realize the transformative power of science in the pursuit of human progress.

A Call to Action

The future of science is at a crossroads. We can either continue down the path of profit-driven, politically entangled research that stifles innovation and compromises public trust, or we can take bold steps to create a new era of independent, patient-centered science. The choice is clear: to unlock the true potential of scientific discovery, we must prioritize objective research, adaptive funding models, and a commitment to ethical inquiry.

By supporting independent scientific institutions like IPAK, you are investing in a future where effective therapies, especially those with significant clinical impact, are no longer sidelined by financial incentives. Through crowd-sourced funding and public engagement, we can reclaim the direction of scientific inquiry, ensuring that it serves the public good, rather than corporate or political interests.

You can take action today by:

1. Supporting IPAK – Your donations enable us to fund truly independent research that prioritizes patient health over profit. Visit the IPAK donation page and contribute to the future of science that serves the people.

2. Joining WSES (The World Society for Ethical Science) – If you're committed to promoting ethical and unbiased research, consider joining the World Society for Ethical Science (WSES). As a member, you'll be part of a global community pushing for integrity and transparency in science. Learn more and sign up at the Public Health Policy Journal website.

3. Taking Courses at IPAK-EDU – Expand your knowledge in science and health by enrolling in courses at IPAK-EDU. Our programs cover a wide range of topics, from prediction science to biomedicine, all taught by experts committed to objective, evidence-based education. Explore available courses at IPAK-EDU.

4. Utilizing the IPAK IRB – If you’re conducting research and need ethical review and guidance, the IPAK Institutional Review Board (IRB) offers services that prioritize integrity, transparency, and the highest ethical standards. Learn more about how we can assist your research at the IRB website.

The time to act is now. Independent science is not a luxury—it is a necessity for the health and well-being of all. By supporting and participating in independent research, you are ensuring that science remains a dynamic force for good, driven by curiosity, integrity, and a commitment to human progress.