Of course, some papers do little more than criticize, picking holes in previous arguments, or showing flaws in data analysis or a lack of full consideration of all possible interpretations. Such criticisms can sometimes be a little brutal, but these works are also ultimately positive — science depends on errors being challenged and ultimately corrected, even if this often takes some time and bruises some egos along the way. In this regard, Richard Feynman was correct in saying that in science, “we are trying to prove ourselves incorrect as quickly as possible”. Again, it requires honesty.

Some threats have come from organized and well-funded groups with political interests directly threatened by scientific information. No one can be unaware of the consistent efforts of the fossil fuel or tobacco industries over many years to spread doubts about the scientific consensus on climate change or the risks of smoking. Sadly, the consultants and public relations professionals behind these campaigns don't share the same norms of honesty as the scientific community. They're not trying to avoid spreading misleading information; quite the opposite.

当然，有些论文只不过是批评，在以前的论点中找出漏洞，或者展示数据分析中的缺陷或缺乏对所有可能的解释的充分考虑。这样的批评有时可能有点残酷，但这些作品最终也是积极的——科学依赖于对错误的挑战并最终得到纠正，即使这通常需要一些时间，并在此过程中伤害一些自尊心。在这方面，理查德·费曼（Richard Feynman）的说法是正确的，在科学中，“我们正在努力尽快证明自己是错误的”。再次强调，这需要诚实。

一些威胁来自有组织且资金充足的团体，其政治利益直接受到科学信息的威胁。没有人会不知道化石燃料或烟草行业多年来一直在努力传播人们对气候变化或吸烟风险的科学共识的怀疑。可悲的是，这些活动背后的顾问和公共关系专业人士并不拥有与科学界相同的诚实准则。他们并不是试图避免传播误导性信息；而是试图避免传播误导性信息。恰恰相反。