All good and interesting points.
As much as I try to guard against cynicism,....
I think whoever funds the science gets to decide what they're going to do with the science. Right down to manipulating data to Gin up stock prices and bamboozle customers.
Here is an example and I'm going to bring up golf, sorry but that's what I kind of know
. The golf magazines are mostly funded by advertising and not subscriptions and newsstand sales. Every year the club and ball manufacturers trot out their new equipment. With claims that their stuff has been 'independently' tested to fly longer and straighter.
If the manufacturers spend enough ad money into a magazine, the magazine will magically back up those claims with glowing reviews. But there is really two more secrets:
1. A legal ball and a legal club is only going to go so far, or so straight. All of this has to be submitted to the competitive governing bodies of golf for real testing. They put tight restrictions on this.
2. Legal technological changes in golf only happen every 20 to 40 years.
3. I know there's not a number three, but you can buy hot clubs and hot balls. But if you get caught playing those against somebody with even a $2 bet, the word will get out and nobody will play with you. They get shunned like OJ Simpson on a golf course.