Sorcery or science – the world of cherry picked data and sloppy statistics

I'm really wondering if the academic environment, from a supposedly free-thinking and failure embracing context has started to share more similarities with a high-competition silicon valley startup scene (excuse the labelling) rather than its own established principles.

Applying for grants is a similar process as raising capital, only with different currencies involved in the evaluation: impact, experimental results, etc. The resulting pressure seems to encourage bad science, as described in the posted link - and the many others shared here on HN.