Lede is buried in the middle:<p><i>One reason the U.K. results were so lackluster might be that the Lancet study compared home-visiting to “usual care,” or the health care new moms would receive anyway. But since the U.K. has universal health care and the U.S. does not, it could be that there was less of a difference between the two British groups than the two American ones.</i>
>Just as many moms who were visited by nurses had a second pregnancy within two years.<p>It is just hinted at in The Atlantic's article, but the original Lancet article confirms that they wanted to reduce second pregnancies.<p>Why was that?
What you are describing is "stupid." Why even bother to try to fix stupid?<p>Stupid people do stupid things and the more you try to support them, the more they do it.<p>People need to learn discipline.
99% of science today involves people self-reporting results, with tenure, grant money, etc. dependent on those results.<p>So are you saying that the credibility of 99% of science is at risk?<p>Note that peer review doesn't get out of this because it really is "peer" review, i.e., an old boys' network.