Foundations of Science Frequently Flawed at the Core

[Guest guest]

http://www.mercola.com/2005/sep/1/foundations_of_science_frequently_flawed_at_th\

e_core.htm

 

Foundations of Science Frequently Flawed at the Core

 

The peer review process is the basic method for checking medical

research. Researchers who didn't work on a particular paper judge

whether or not it meets scientific standards. But some specialists

have begun to wonder whether or not peer review fails to detect

serious flaws in research.

 

It's almost impossible to find out what happens in the vetting

process; peer reviewers are unpaid, anonymous and unaccountable. Their

reviews are kept confidential, making it difficult to determine their

standards.

 

One-Third of Studies Have Been Questioned

 

Now, a study has found that almost one-third of peer-reviewed research

articles have been either contradicted or seriously questioned, and

some scientists are calling for changes in the system. They suggested

that reviewers drop their anonymity and allow comments to be

published, and some have additionally proposed that peer reviewers be

paid to ensure consistent quality.

 

Dr. Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of the Journal of the American

Medical Association, said of peer review, ''The more we look into it,

the harder it is to prove whether it does good or bad. " Rennie has

called for a study of this issue. He has a personal policy of

disclosing his name for his journal article reviews.

 

Anonymity: Benefit or Hindrance?

 

Other scientists disagreed with the criticisms, arguing that anonymity

allows reviewers to give negative reviews without fearing damage to

their future careers.

 

The peer review system has had many successes; it has saved scientists

from publishing seriously flawed work or incorrect medical advice. But

it lacks consistent standards; the expertise of the reviewers can vary

widely from journal to journal. There is no organization that sets

standards or guidelines for peer review.

 

Dubious Incidents

 

There have been many incidents that cast doubt on the validity of the

current peer review process. In one study, researchers submitted a

plagiarized paper to 110 journals, but only two noticed the problem.

In another, researchers looked at 18 peer-reviewed papers written by

researchers who had later admitted to scientific fraud. Sixteen of the

papers were riddled with errors.

 

 

Boston Globe August 15, 2005 (Registration Required)

 

Dr. Mercola's Comment:

 

There are many problems with the American medical research system as

it's currently designed, and I'm glad people are finally starting to

sit up and take notice.

 

The problems with the journal publishing system are just the tip of

the iceberg -- although the peer review process, dependent as it is on

the prejudices of the scientists performing the reviews, has a

distinct tendency to let flawed papers through if they are on

" acceptable " topics, while casting a much more disapproving eye on

" alternative " medicine, no matter how solid its foundation in medical

fact.

 

Other more troubling problems include the blatant conflict of interest

that controls what studies are funded, what topics are chosen for

research, and even what results will be claimed. The pharmaceutical

companies have the money and call the shots, and their research always

seems to come up saying " our drugs are good, " " our drugs are safe, "

and " buy our drugs. "

 

A 2005 survey showed that scientists cannot and do not remain

objective in the face of corporate pressures. Scientists admitted to:

 

* Falsifying or " cooking " research data

* Not properly disclosing conflicts of interest

* Failing to present contrary data

* Using inadequate or inappropriate research design

* Dropping observations or data points, and inadequate record keeping

 

Of more than 3,000 scientists surveyed, 20.6 percent admitted to

changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to

pressure from the funding source. And this could be a gross

underestimate of actual violations, since misbehaving scientists may

have been less likely than others to respond to the survey for fear of

discovery.

 

Good science must be based in fact rather than prejudice, and free of

monetary influence from those who want to see results go a certain

way. The current processes for funding, performing and peer reviewing

medical studies could all use a good overhaul.

 

 

 

Related Articles:

 

Peer Review System for Journals Can Get You Into Trouble

 

New England Journal Changes Rules and Says Its OK to Payoff Its

Reviewers

 

Is the Evidence Really Evidence?