I don't think one needs a specific study for such a broad question.
Science has historically based on a system of open debate. From Galileo onward, the ability of a scientist to engage in experiments which put commonly believed ideas into question has been one of the foundations of scientific progress. Both the NAZIs and the regime of Joseph Stalin had a history of supporting well-connected frauds to the detriment of science.
This doesn't mean that an authoritarian regime make science impossible but a regime where one's connections largely determine one's success, which stifles public debate and where winning become more important than telling the truth is going to have a hard time cultivating the honest, open debate that science needs to arrive at truer theories.
China is well known for scientific fraud already. The current leader is attempting to "root out corruption" and the party may try to root out bad science too but given that the anti-corruption efforts have gone against the leader's enemies, it seems likely that bad scientists with good connections can rest easy.
>> Both the NAZIs and the regime of Joseph Stalin had a history of supporting well-connected frauds to the detriment of science.
Can you expand some details about that in the nazi regime ? but leave aside that nasty stuff with eugenics(which wasn't really a science) and focus on the hard sciences ?
"Please give examples of pseudoscience, but leave aside pseudoscience".
But fine, let's skip eugenics.
* Ahnenerbe - racial heritage of German people, and plenty of occultism
* Large parts of their human experimentation.
* "Social Darwinism". (Granted, runs into eugenics. But it's the foundational belief under the whole regime, so hard to avoid)
* Phrenology
* "Jewish physics" - discarding Einstein completely. Trying to get Heisenberg & Quantum Physics, as well, but turned out his science worked a little too well to discard.
* The idea that women can't get pregnant from rape[1]
In general, you'll find much of the "bad" science in the softer sciences - the more soft, the worse. The reason is that it's easier to maintain a fraud if the field doesn't expect clear reproducible answers.
The harder sciences were affected via Aryanization - e.g. Chemistry lost 25% of all its academics in the runup to 39.[2]
Science has historically based on a system of open debate. From Galileo onward, the ability of a scientist to engage in experiments which put commonly believed ideas into question has been one of the foundations of scientific progress. Both the NAZIs and the regime of Joseph Stalin had a history of supporting well-connected frauds to the detriment of science.
This doesn't mean that an authoritarian regime make science impossible but a regime where one's connections largely determine one's success, which stifles public debate and where winning become more important than telling the truth is going to have a hard time cultivating the honest, open debate that science needs to arrive at truer theories.
China is well known for scientific fraud already. The current leader is attempting to "root out corruption" and the party may try to root out bad science too but given that the anti-corruption efforts have gone against the leader's enemies, it seems likely that bad scientists with good connections can rest easy.