From: rpattree2@gmail.com   
      
   An Epidemic of False Claims    
   Competition and conflicts of interest distort too many medical findings    
   May 17, 2011 |By John P. A. Ioannidis    
   **    
      
   False positives and exaggerated results in peer-reviewed scientific studies   
   have reached epidemic proportions in recent years. The problem is rampant in   
   economics, the social sciences and even the natural sciences, but it is   
   particularly egregious in    
   biomedicine. Many studies that claim some drug or treatment is beneficial have   
   turned out not to be true. We need only look to conflicting findings about   
   beta-carotene, vitamin E, hormone treatments, Vioxx and Avandia. Even when   
   effects are genuine,    
   their true magnitude is often smaller than originally claimed.    
   The problem begins with the public's rising expectations of science. Being   
   human, scientists are tempted to show that they know more than they do. The   
   number of investigators--and the number of experiments, observations and   
   analyses they produce--has    
   also increased exponentially in many fields, but adequate safeguards against   
   bias are lacking. Research is fragmented, competition is fierce and emphasis   
   is often given to single studies instead of the big picture.    
   Much research is conducted for reasons other than the pursuit of truth.   
   Conflicts of interest abound, and they influence outcomes. In health care,   
   research is often performed at the behest of companies that have a large   
   financial stake in the results.    
   Even for academics, success often hinges on publishing positive findings. The   
   oligopoly of high-impact journals also has a distorting effect on funding,   
   academic careers and market shares. Industry tailors research agendas to suit   
   its needs, which also    
   shapes academic priorities, journal revenue and even public funding.    
   The crisis should not shake confidence in the scientific method. The ability   
   to prove something false continues to be a hallmark of science. But scientists   
   need to improve the way they do their research and how they disseminate   
   evidence.    
   First, we must routinely demand robust and extensive external validation--in   
   the form of additional studies--for any report that claims to have found   
   something new. Many fields pay little attention to the need for replication or   
   do it sparingly and    
   haphazardly. Second, scientific reports should take into account the number of   
   analyses that have been conducted, which would tend to downplay false   
   positives. Of course, that would mean some valid claims might get overlooked.   
   Here is where large    
   international collaborations may be indispensable. Human-genome epidemiology   
   has recently had a good track record because several large-scale consortia   
   rigorously validate genetic risk factors.    
   The best way to ensure that test results are verified would be for scientists   
   to register their detailed experimental protocols before starting their   
   research and disclose full results and data when the research is done. At the   
   moment, results are often    
   selectively reported, emphasizing the most exciting among them, and outsiders   
   frequently do not have access to what they need to replicate studies. Journals   
   and funding agencies should strongly encourage full public availability of all   
   data and    
   analytical methods for each published paper. It would help, too, if scientists   
   stated up front the limitations of their data or inherent flaws in their study   
   designs. Likewise, scientists and sponsors should be thorough in disclosing   
   all potential    
   conflicts of interest.    
   Some fields have adopted one or several of these mechanisms. Large   
   international consortia are becoming commonplace in epidemiology; journals   
   such as Annals of Internal Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical   
   Association instruct authors to    
   address study limitations; and many journals ask about conflicts of interest.   
   Applying the measures widely won't be easy, however.    
   Many scientists engaged in high-stakes research will refuse to make thorough   
   disclosures. More important, much essential research has already been   
   abandoned to the pharmaceutical and biomedical device industries, which may   
   sometimes design and report    
   studies in ways most favorable to their products. This is an embarrassment.   
   Increased investment in evidence-based clinical and population research, for   
   instance, should be designed not by industry but by scientists free of   
   material conflicts of interest.   
       
      
   Read More:    
      
      
   http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/an-epidemic-of-false-claims/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)