https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/rigor-mortis-whats-wrong-with-medical-science-and-how-to-fix-it/
Medical research has been plagued by less-than-rigorous practices and a culture that rewards quantity over quality. In a new book, Richard Harris identifies the problems, proposes solutions, and offers hope.
I just finished reading Richard Harris’ excellent book, Rigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope, and Wastes Billions.
From the title, I was expecting an angry, biased polemic attacking
science and scientists. I was very pleasantly surprised. He doesn’t
condemn science. He points out problems with the way science is carried
out, mostly problems that scientists are already aware of and are trying
to correct. And he offers practical solutions.
He explains that the term “rigor mortis” in the title is hyperbole.
Rigor in scientific research isn’t dead, but it needs a major jolt of
energy. He says scientists have been taking shortcuts around the methods
they are supposed to use to avoid fooling themselves. They have often
had to choose between maintaining scientific rigor and doing what they
perceive as necessary to maintain a career in a hypercompetitive field.
That’s a choice no one should have to make. The challenge is not just to
make technical fixes in research procedures, but to change the culture.
He cites a study published in Nature in 2012 by C. Glenn Begley on raising the standards for preclinical cancer research. Begley identified 53 potentially groundbreaking studies and tried to reproduce them, working closely with the original researchers. He was only able to reproduce the findings of six (6!) of the studies. The non-reproducible studies had been cited as many as 2,000 times by other researchers as a basis for their own studies. Non-reproducible findings had sent research off in wrong directions. Sometimes huge houses of cards are built on an error, and it can take years for the science to self-correct.
Leonard Freedman, who founded the Global Biological Standards Institute, estimates that:
He cites a study published in Nature in 2012 by C. Glenn Begley on raising the standards for preclinical cancer research. Begley identified 53 potentially groundbreaking studies and tried to reproduce them, working closely with the original researchers. He was only able to reproduce the findings of six (6!) of the studies. The non-reproducible studies had been cited as many as 2,000 times by other researchers as a basis for their own studies. Non-reproducible findings had sent research off in wrong directions. Sometimes huge houses of cards are built on an error, and it can take years for the science to self-correct.
Leonard Freedman, who founded the Global Biological Standards Institute, estimates that:
- 20% of studies have untrustworthy designs:
- 25% use dubious ingredients such as contaminated cells or antibodies that are not as selective as they think.
- 8% involve poor lab technique
- 18% of the time, scientist mishandle their data analysis.
No comments:
Post a Comment