Posted on 05/23/2007 12:43:06 PM PDT by LibWhacker
In a 2005 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, epidemiologist John Ioannidis showed that among the 45 most highly cited clinical research findings of the past 15 years, 99 percent of molecular research had subsequently been refuted. Epidemiology findings had been contradicted in four-fifths of the cases he looked at, and the usually robust outcomes of clinical trials had a refutation rate of one in four.
The revelations struck a chord with the scientific community at large: A recent essay by Ioannidis simply entitled "Why most published research findings are false" has been downloaded more than 100,000 times; the Boston Globe called it "an instant cult classic." Now in a Möbius-strip-like twist, there is a growing body of research that is investigating, analyzing, and suggesting causes and solutions for faulty research. Advertisement
Two papers published this spring in the open-access journal PLoS Medicine by Benjamin Djulbegovic from the University of South Florida and Ramal Moonesinghe from the CDC have delved into the issues raised by Ioannidis and suggested possible ways to mitigate this apparent failure of scientific enterprise. One of the suggestions is to ensure that experimental results are independently replicable. "More often than not, genuine replication is not done, and what we end up with in the literature is corroboration or indirect supporting evidence," says Moonesinghe.
The culprits appear to be the proverbial suspects: lies, damn lies, and statistics. Jonathan Sterne and George Smith, a statistician and an epidemiologist from the university of Bristol in the UK, point out in a study in British Medical Journal that "the widespread misunderstanding of statistical significance is a fundamental problem" in medical research. What's more, the scientist's bias may distort statistics. Pressure to publish can lead to "selective reporting;" the implication is that attention-seeking scientists are exaggerating their results far more often than the occasional, spectacular science fraud would suggest.
Cash-for-science practices between the nutrition and drug companies and the academics that conduct their research may also be playing a role. A survey of published results on beverages earlier this year found that research sponsored by industry is much more likely to report favorable findings than papers with other sources of funding. Although not a direct indication of bias, findings like these feed suspicion that the cherry-picking of data, hindrance of negative results, or adjustment of research is surreptitiously corrupting accuracy. In his essay, Ioannidis wrote, "The greater the financial and other interest and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true."
Academic bias could also be to blame. As Ioannidis puts it, "Prestigious investigators may suppress via the peer-review process the appearance and dissemination of findings that refute their findings, thus condemning their field to perpetuate false dogma." Advocates of prevailing paradigms have been observed to band together in opposition against alternative ideas with perhaps more antagonism than one might expect from objective scientific debate. And the opposition isn't limited to publication of new science; jobs and grants are also more easily allocated to those affiliated with the scientific party in power.
Ioannidis is adamant that the problem is widespread. "I have heard from scientists from many different fields who think that the problems are the same in their fields as well," he says. "This is a potentially severe crisis, unless we realize the issue and try to address it."
With the debate over the causes and solutions of high rates of falsifiable research findings ongoing, how the problem is seen in the eyes of a skeptical public may be another issue altogether. Virginia Barbour, managing editor of PLoS Medicine, puts it simply: "In terms of perception, the point is that science doesn't emerge from single new findings that become 'breakthrough' stories in the media, but rather from developments that mature over months or years, with different sources of experimental validation."
The ones about global warming being caused by human activity are.
Agree.
About two years ago some kids at MIT submitted an item to this board. They fabricated the whole thing. They even made up words. It was a prank to expose this board as a sham.
Interesting read.
This can’t possibly be. Finacial gain over scientific integrity. I'm totally blown away!
” Cash-for-science practices between the nutrition and drug companies and the academics that conduct their research may also be playing a role. A survey of published results on beverages earlier this year found that research sponsored by industry is much more likely to report favorable findings than papers with other sources of funding. Although not a direct indication of bias, findings like these feed suspicion that the cherry-picking of data, hindrance of negative results, or adjustment of research is surreptitiously corrupting accuracy. In his essay, Ioannidis wrote, “The greater the financial and other interest and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.” “
Note that the author completely ignores the most egregious sinner here — the “environmentalists” and the “nanny-staters” (ie ‘second-hand smoke’) unabashedly use junk-science to ‘prove’ their positions...
It’s all just the nasty ol’ corporations, don’tcha know......
In 1989, a CDC ‘White Paper’ stated that by the year 2000, one in six male college students would be infected by the HIV virus.
Obviously, it never happened. Just as obviously, I don’t believe anything that comes from the CDC, which isn’t science based, its political correct based.
marked
bump
BTW, this can happen without any concious intent on the part of the researchers.
It has been conclusively proven over and over, in (truly scientific) double-blind studies, that scientists tend to find what they expect to find, even when they have no discernable financial or career incentive to do so. Such incentives obviously make it even easier to overlook countervailing evidence.
ping
ping
Before my mother died she took my wife aside and told her she would get the silver upon her death with the admonishment to pass it on.
When our daughter married, my wife presented her with the blue velvet lined solid wood box.
I don’t remember ever using that silver set but I did polish it when I was ten.
One day when I was about 13 my grandmother confided in me that my mom’s silver was merely plated.
I’ve never checked the authenticity of that box of treasure.
bookmark
Pure bunk and a federal appeals judge said so.
But the state of California, for example, still pushes the false conclusion of invalid "study" in an aggressive anti-smoking all-media campaign -- also at the taxpayer's expense.
In this state, we get to pay to be lied to, to have our intelligence insulted, to lose our freedoms.
I don’t know what percent, but many surely are. My professors were always in a huff to publish something, anything, because that was required as part of the job. On professor admitted that publication, not content, was important. Some of their writings sounded contrived.
regardless of the falsifications over 90% of technical papers are useless anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.