These conventional science bloggers are really something. They've
never met a published study extolling mainstream science they haven't
loved. I don't know,
maybe the studies somehow remind them of mommy and
her warm basement where they still live at age 40 and do their
important work.
A study praising a new drug? A study claiming a vaccine was "well
tolerated?" A study claiming GMOs are perfectly safe? A study
reporting the dire effects of manmade warming? They kiss it and try to
make it better.
So here are a few statements they can chew on like week-old delivery pizza.
Warning: what follows could forever alter your view of published science.
We begin with quotes from two editors of prestigious science journals.
These people have read, pawed over, analyzed, and dissected more science
studies than 1000 bloggers taken together ever will.
One: Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in
The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385,
"Offline: What is medicine's 5 sigma?":
"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific
literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies
with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and
flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing
fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn
towards darkness...
"The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In
their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt
data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit
hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share
of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence
to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a
select few journals. Our love of 'significance' pollutes the literature
with many a statistical fairy-tale...Journals are not the only
miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and
talent..."
Two: Marcia Angell, former editor of
The New England Journal of Medicine, in the NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009,
"Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption":
"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical
research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted
physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in
this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two
decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine."
Three: John PA Ioannidis, Department of Hygiene and
Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina,
Greece, and Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies,
Department of Medicine, Tufts-New England Medical Center, Tufts
University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, in
PLoS Medicine, August 30, 2005,
"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False":
"There is increasing concern that most current published research
findings [in all scientific fields] are false... a research finding is
less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are
smaller; when effect sizes are smaller...when there is greater financial
and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a
scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show
that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a
research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current
scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply
accurate measures of the prevailing bias...There is increasing concern
that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the
vast majority of published research claims. However, this should not be
surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are
false."
Four: Back to Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The
Lancet. In the same editorial quoted above, Horton makes reference to a
recent symposium he attended at the Wellcome Trust in London. The
subject of the meeting was the reliability of published biomedical
research. His following quote carries additional force because he and
other attendees were told to obey Chatham House rules---meaning no one
would reveal who made any given comment during the conference.
Horton:
"'A lot of what is published is incorrect.' I'm not allowed
to say who made this remark [at the conference] because we were asked to
observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs
of slides. Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their
comments especially remain unquoted, since the forthcoming UK election
meant they were living in 'purdah'---a chilling state where severe
restrictions on freedom of speech are placed on anyone on the
government's payroll. Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and
non-attribution? Because this symposium---on the reproducibility and
reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London
last week---touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science
today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of
our greatest human creations [biomedical science]".
No comments:
Post a Comment