The author describes examples where silence perpetuates harmful practices and prevents the discovery of fraud or misconduct in science (such as data manipulation or ethical lapses).[4] The article argues that silence can lead to long-term consequences, including unnecessary waste of resources in repeated failed attempts and damage to the careers of people who try to replicate falsified results.5 The author describes that whistleblowers often face isolation, risk of career consequences, and lack of support from institutions.3][4] The text gives examples of investigative journalism that has exposed cases of scientific fraud and misrepresented studies, and mentions the winners of the 2025 AAAS Kavli Awards for such reporting.[5][5] The article points out that some reporting has uncovered cases where cited sources or studies did not exist, including a case with multiple missing or fabricated sources.The author also notes that correction after disclosure can be slow and that quick corrections or retractions tend to be the exception[3][5].