The prostitution of science

[diogenes]

There is an excellent article by Stuart Ritchie in this week's New Scientist, which demonstrates the depth to which science has sunk as regards integrity and promotion of results outside the discipline. Chemistry, physics and medical science are criticised under the same umbrella. The article shows the distortions that occur if science is governed solely by grant giving and the resulting excess of papers of doubtful validity , nonreptition of key results and hype, where unsupported claims are published outside the discipline.

This is a terrible situation, which makes scientists like myself, of an earlier age, even more determined to take care in what I say and write. No wonder in the medical field, honest reporting is drowned out by the false ideas put about and maintained even in the face of alternative evidence..

[diogenes Remembering]

He also has a book recently out which is well worth reading:

Bias, Fraud, Negligence and Hype in Science:

Imprint: Bodley Head

Published: 16/07/2020

ISBN: 9781847925657

Length: 368 Pages

Dimensions: 240mm x 162mm x 162mm

Weight: 592g

RRP: £18.99

[shaws]

The old-fashioned statement 'honesty is the best policy' is long forgotten. There was a time when people didn't tell lies in order to get out of bad situations but nowadays there seems to be no conscience at all and they can state what they want.

[Hidden]

Everything I trusted has gone downhill becuse people choose to behave in bad ways

[Angel_of_the_North in reply to Hidden]

I don't think it's people/individuals who behave in bad ways but institutions and those who run them are too scared of losing funding and know they are untouchable by the little people

[Hillwoman]

Just a point about BC: lead time bias is a problem in screening programmes. Early diagnosis leads to a longer term under treatment for the individual, but not necessarily to longer life overall. Peter Goetzsche has written extensively about this. I used to have a link to a very good paper written by the Nordic Cochrane Collaboration on all the problems linked to routine breast mammography, but there is also a book available by PG. After going through the two-week urgent diagnosis process several times, I read up as much as I could and decided to opt out of post-50 screening, just relying on self-examination as and when.

[Angel_of_the_North in reply to Hillwoman]

Yes, I had a screen and diagnosis of DCIS. I refused treatment and further screening and I'm not dead - that was nearly 14 years ago. Scared me stupid though.

[Hillwoman in reply to Angel_of_the_North]

It really concerns me that DCIS is so often treated as aggressively as faster growing cancers.

There's been such financial investment in the screening programme that women are chivvied into it without being given comprehensive information about the risks and benefits.

[helvella Administrator]

From a personal point of view, one of the worst things is that we really have no way of expressing our disagreements, our concerns, with what is published.

Many put a lot of effort into commenting on the draft NICE Thyroid guidelines. Perhaps we had some slight impact. And at least we were offered the chance. But there is no feeling that our comments really were understood and taken on board.

When we come to the majority of papers, we don't even get that much.

We start with full papers being behind paywalls. (Despite some funding bodies mandating open access publication.) We then have no place to express our opinions.

Obviously we wouldn't want to see some of the ludicrously long, and often off-topic, threads that happen in chatty forums. But somewhere we could in public explain why we question a paper. All these challenges occur behind closed doors. In private email conversations. (A few exceptions - yes, there is the odd comment paper. But they are pretty rare.)

I also find it very difficult that we see so many papers concluding that more research is needed. Quite often that is true. But no-one seems to take up the challenge. No-one does some of the very basic, indeed fundamental, research that is needed. There is nowhere that we can even post the questions we believe need answering.

Obviously there are forums like here and numerous others which have no impact on those doing and funding research.

[m7-cola]

Interesting and challenging common sense!

[Hillwoman]

I'm very sorry to hear that. Diagnosis of a 4 cm tumour must have been really alarming.

[penny]

The old chestnut: ‘follow the money’.

[Angel_of_the_North]

They might not now, but they did in 2005