Beware the creeping cracks of bias, Nature, [FREE]

[Darwinsbulldog]

by Daniel Sarewitz

Alarming cracks are starting to penetrate deep into the scientific edifice. They threaten the status of science and its value to society. And they cannot be blamed on the usual suspects — inadequate funding, misconduct, political interference, an illiterate public. Their cause is bias, and the threat they pose goes to the heart of research.
Bias is an inescapable element of research, especially in fields such as biomedicine that strive to isolate cause–effect relations in complex systems in which relevant variables and phenomena can never be fully identified or characterized. Yet if biases were random, then multiple studies ought to converge on truth. Evidence is mounting that biases are not random. A Comment in Nature in March reported that researchers at Amgen were able to confirm the results of only six of 53 'landmark studies' in preclinical cancer research (C. G. Begley & L. M. Ellis Nature 483, 531–533; 2012). For more than a decade, and with increasing frequency, scientists and journalists have pointed out similar problems.
Early signs of trouble were appearing by the mid-1990s, when researchers began to document systematic positive bias in clinical trials funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Initially these biases seemed easy to address, and in some ways they offered psychological comfort. The problem, after all, was not with science, but with the poison of the profit motive. It could be countered with strict requirements to disclose conflicts of interest and to report all clinical trials.
Related stories

• Must try harder
• Drug candidates derailed in case of mistaken identity
• Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research

Yet closer examination showed that the trouble ran deeper. Science's internal controls on bias were failing, and bias and error were trending in the same direction — towards the pervasive over-selection and over-reporting of false positive results. The problem was most provocatively asserted in a now-famous 2005 paper by John Ioannidis, currently at Stanford University in California: 'Why Most Published Research Findings Are False' (J. P. A. Ioannidis PLoS Med. 2, e124; 2005). Evidence of systematic positive bias was turning up in research ranging from basic to clinical, and on subjects ranging from genetic disease markers to testing of traditional Chinese medical practices.
How can we explain such pervasive bias? Like a magnetic field that pulls iron filings into alignment, a powerful cultural belief is aligning multiple sources of scientific bias in the same direction. The belief is that progress in science means the continual production of positive findings. All involved benefit from positive results, and from the appearance of progress. Scientists are rewarded both intellectually and professionally, science administrators are empowered and the public desire for a better world is answered. The lack of incentives to report negative results, replicate experiments or recognize inconsistencies, ambiguities and uncertainties is widely appreciated — but the necessary cultural change is incredibly difficult to achieve.
Researchers seek to reduce bias through tightly controlled experimental investigations. In doing so, however, they are also moving farther away from the real-world complexity in which scientific results must be applied to solve problems. The consequences of this strategy have become acutely apparent in mouse-model research. The technology to produce unlimited numbers of identical transgenic mice attracts legions of researchers and abundant funding because it allows for controlled, replicable experiments and rigorous hypothesis-testing — the canonical tenets of 'scientific excellence'. But the findings of such research often turn out to be invalid when applied to humans.

FULL ARTICLE HERE:-

http://www.nature.com/news/beware-th...f-bias-1.10600

BTW, I think yours truely just got banned from commenting on Nature, as I used the word "bollocks", not to a person, I was discussing knowledge.

[Mjt]

This is most interesting Puppy. I heard a lecture a few years ago on whiter or not is was possible for any type of research or reporting to not be influenced by bias either by cultural , external or personal influences. I shall read the full paper on my day off.
Did you get your puppy cranky on
Still don't think they should ban OUR Puppy.
Want us to get 'em?

[Mjt]

I just re read my last post! Praxis would shake her head. You get what I meant yeah?

[Darwinsbulldog]

I have been unbannified by Nature, and can resubmit my article, on the proviso that I will wash my mouth out with soap and not use naughty words like "bollocks". I have declined the invitation.

[Mjt]

Good for you Puppy. Their loss
So you are in the researchy reporty kinda world, and see a lot more. Do you think bias is a real problem?
It is something which you hear about with the likes of the pharmaceutical companies, but do you see it being very wide spread?

bollocks
bollocks
bollocks
bollocks

[Darwinsbulldog]

Originally Posted by Mjt

Good for you Puppy. Their loss
So you are in the researchy reporty kinda world, and see a lot more. Do you think bias is a real problem?
It is something which you hear about with the likes of the pharmaceutical companies, but do you see it being very wide spread?

bollocks
bollocks
bollocks
bollocks

I can be. After all, you can't make a big scientific reputation for yourself as a researcher by just repeating a study that has gone before. Studies do get replicated, but in a bitsy way. To be published, the must be something new about it, unless it is a review.

So not enough studies are published that are negative...we did not find this. Hardly thrilling, but it does add to knowledge. The thing is, few government or corporate research bodies have so much money that they can afford to do replicate studies, unless there is a compelling reason for doing so.
Basic research, with no goal in mind except to "know stuff", is fairly rare. The Large Hardon Collider is basic research, but everyone expects [with good reason] that it will lead to advances and profits as well as providing "basic" or academic knowledge about natural phenomena at the sub-atomic level. But this is not always the case.

In studies on evolution for example, grants often have to be written with some practical consideration in mind. Perhaps conservation, or fighting viruses, or better crop management, or whatever.
Richard Lenski's Labs, which do the "Long Term Evolution Experiments on E. Coli" are an example of basic research which also has concrete benefits in terms of disease management, and working out how to overcome anti-biotic resistant bacteria, and stuff like that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli...ion_experiment

But there are interesting projects that will be battling to find funding if it is perceived they are not going to bring results in a reasonable time that will be of practical benefit. This, I think, can lead to gaps in knowledge that delay scientific advance generally.

[Mjt]

I have often wondered who decides what gets funding and why. Does a large amount of the funding dollar come from private enterprise? The outcomes of new research must be a bit of a gamble if what you are looking for is a particular beneficial result with a financial gain. I wonder how much good stuff just never gets funding, and how much research with potential fails.


bollocks
bollocks
bollocks

[Mjt]

My niece works for the government and her research grants seem to last 12 months and then gone regardless of how the studies are going. First it was micro bats, then lightening ants and now feral cats. It must be frustrating to get that far into a project and not be able to carry it through. In the end I suppose it just comes down to money, which is a shame.
Naprosan is a good example. The company has stopped producing it, it is the only treatment for very young kids with arthritis that doesn't contain steroids, and the market is so small that nobody is interested in researching an alternative. Not sure of the real ins and outs of the issue as I only caught an interview on the radio about it, but it just seems to come down to money.

[Darwinsbulldog]

Originally Posted by Mjt

My niece works for the government and her research grants seem to last 12 months and then gone regardless of how the studies are going. First it was micro bats, then lightening ants and now feral cats. It must be frustrating to get that far into a project and not be able to carry it through. In the end I suppose it just comes down to money, which is a shame.
Naprosan is a good example. The company has stopped producing it, it is the only treatment for very young kids with arthritis that doesn't contain steroids, and the market is so small that nobody is interested in researching an alternative. Not sure of the real ins and outs of the issue as I only caught an interview on the radio about it, but it just seems to come down to money.

Money is not about money anymore,it is all about beliefs. For example, the value of coal. It is cheap, because social and environemental costs are not included in the market price.
The price of food and medicine is really what the stock market thinks is the value of life. As the price of foods and medicines go up, so do death rates of those that can't afford them.

Same for basic research. If the world is mainly full of people who believe the earth is 6K old, Or/and created/run by a magic man, then science is devalued. Or even shunned. Often in a cherry-picking way. Warriors for god, who hate science that bursts their delusional bubbles [eg evolution, cosmology, geology], embrace the science and technology of nukes or chemical warfare.

[Mjt]

So here in Australia does religious belief have much influence on scientific research, either what gets done or how results are interpreted?