Today, a phrase is circulating with alarming frequency in comment sections, podcasts and even legislative hearings: “Almost all studies are biased.” This erroneous claim is stated not to provoke investigation; instead, it is used as an excuse to disqualify opposing viewpoints and, oftentimes, science. Consequently, this phrase is one of the most intellectually corrosive ideas of our time.

While this phrase is baseless, I understand the frustration behind it. Last fall quarter, I had the pleasure of taking Busting Energy Myths, a freshman introductory seminar at Stanford University. In the first two weeks, we read one research article and decided whether we agreed with the study’s results.

When polled on our position, only one person in the class disagreed with the study’s results. That one person turned out to be right. Our professors explained that other members in the scientific community had established that the data had been cherry-picked in order to fit the study’s narrative. They urged us to examine all literature with the same skepticism, not simply believing a finding because of the organization behind it.

This came as a shock. I had always seen social media posts, opinion pieces and even the news having the ability to carry bias or spread misinformation, but never scientific research. As a kid, and throughout my life, I was told to “believe the science,” but now I was being told a highly regarded scientific study was, in fact, wrong. 

So I get it. The skepticism isn’t baseless. Conflicts of interest exist. Publication bias — the tendency for journals to favor positive results over null findings — is a real, well-documented problem. Researchers, consciously or not, can let their assumptions shape their methodology. 

Over the next few months, I began to understand the difference between verifying findings and discrediting research as a whole. Calling out a study for cherry-picking data, for example, takes intellectual rigor, and in the case of the study I read, corroborating scientific research. 

On the other hand, simply declaring “almost all studies are biased” from a position of influence, dismissing the enterprise of research entirely, is something else. The phrase is misinformation attempting to disguise itself as skepticism.

Simply questioning studies does not hold merit. Statements such as,  “Are we sure these studies aren’t all funded by Big Pharma?” are attempts to spread a false claim, not to promote investigation or review. Unfortunately, these claims affect individuals by activating suspicion without supplying any proof.

The consequences of statements such as these are being felt across America. Erroneous claims from the Health and Human Services Department on the efficacy of vaccines have contributed to a decline in child vaccinations. In March of 2026, the CDC found that child vaccination rates for the flu had declined by over 7%, with other vaccination rates for diseases such as Measles and Rotavirus decreasing as well. This has contributed to the spread of diseases previously controlled by herd immunity and, in some cases, caused public health crises. 

Similar doubt or denial about climate change has given politicians and world leaders an excuse to disregard the destruction of ecosystems across the world. This rejection of scientific fact, to appease anti-vaxxers or oil manufacturers and gain subsequent political support, promotes widespread doubt detrimental to society. Doubt, when weaponized against research broadly, is not a neutral intellectual position. It comes at a cost. 

That is not to say researchers should receive immunity from scrutiny; in fact, skepticism is an integral part of research and science. However, the appropriate response to a flawed study is not to throw out the scientific method; it is to read more carefully, to look for replication, to seek out meta-analyses and to notice whether findings have been independently confirmed. 

Likewise, when confronted with skepticism and increasing doubt, the scientific community has increased the use of these methods to ensure the accuracy of studies. At Stanford, many studies face up to six rounds of review, from within the organization, as well as from independent scholars within the discipline. This way, skepticism does not undermine science; it produces better science by ensuring researchers are held accountable and produce unbiased results.

As the quarter came to a close, I left Busting Energy Myths with a more complicated relationship to research than I walked in with. While I learned bias can exist, even at the highest levels of research, it can be discovered when the norms of a scholarly publication require transparency about their methods of research and conflicts of interest. This is our academic system working, not failing. In the process, I gained more trust in the system that produces the science we rely on.

We need this system of review, and though it is not perfect, the alternative, a public that does not have trust in evidence itself, is far more dangerous than any individual flawed study because distrust in science can put even our universal principles in danger. 

I do think science deserves skepticism, but it does not deserve abandonment. In an era where doubt has been used as a way to gain political support, defending the integrity and upholding the importance of research is one of the most urgent things any of us can do. To put it simply, the answer to bad science is better science, not no science.