GLP podcast: Is ChatGPT writing fake studies? Vegan restaurateur serves meat, sparks outrage; We need better IVF regulation

Researchers are increasingly relying on Chat GPT and other AI platforms to write their peer-reviewed studies, raising yet another serious question about research integrity. A vegan restaurant owner who began serving meat is now under fire from thousands of former customers—and the animal rights group PETA. In-vitro fertilization (IVF) is decades old at this point, but the industry is still very lightly regulated. Partisan politics may prevent us from developing the kinds of rules necessary to protect prospective moms and their children.

Podcast:

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Join hosts Dr. Liza Dunn and GLP contributor Cameron English on episode 267 of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories:

• Is AI infiltrating scientific publishing? Rise of ‘suspicious’ tell words popping up in published papers

Some scientists have turned to AI text generators to write their academic research. The scandal was uncovered because strange phrases like “certainly, here is a possible introduction for your topic” began to show up in published journal articles, meaning neither  the peer-reviewers nor the journal editors caught the obvious gaff before approving the papers for publication. AI-authored studies are the latest problem on a long list of issues that are crippling academic publishing. What can be done to bring this critical problem under control?

• ‘My identity was tied to veganism’: Why this restaurant owner decided to swap plant-based cuisine for regeneratively-grown meat

• Viewpoint: ‘Real IVF industry regulation is long overdue. But consumer protection is not enough’

Although IVF has been used to treat infertility for decades, serious ethical questions about the technology remain unresolved. If a freezer malfunctions at a clinic, for instance, who’s responsible for the destroyed embryos? Laws vary significantly between states and are more often motivated by current political controversies than a genuine desire to protect the patients involved.

Legislators on both sides of the issue say they’re trying to protect human rights. One faction says women should have unconditional access to IFV, while their opponents argue that embryos are people and deserve the same legal protections we all enjoy. Absent from this rancorous partisanship is any meaningful attempt to regulate an industry that commercializes reproduction. What, if anything, can be done?

Dr. Liza Dunn is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD

Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Visit his website and follow him on X @camjenglish