Josh Paniagua
June 9, 2015
(ANTIMEDIA)
In the modern era of information, it isn’t necessarily uncommon to
stumble across average folks—who lack a formal education in any
scientific field—discussing scientific data. Thanks to the rapid
evolution of the internet, acquiring a fundamental understanding of
scientific theories is as simple as a few clicks on a keyboard and a
couple of hours of reading.
However, there is much more to the science community
than…well…science. The scientific method itself may be unquestionable.
Still, the scientists, organizations, and interpretation of data are
very much questionable.
two of the most esteemed and distinguished medical journals in the
world. Both have published peer-reviewed data for around 200 years.
Despite this, according to the editors of these outlets, fame and
influence don’t inherently imply integrity.
Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, recently wrote:
“Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be
untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects,
invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest,
together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious
importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one
participant put it, “poor methods get results”. The Academy of Medical
Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological
Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind
an investigation into these questionable research practices. The
apparent endemicity [i.e. pervasiveness within the scientific culture]
of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a
compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their
preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their
data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid
and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor
fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals.
Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a
statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are
not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for
money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as
high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such as the
Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices. And individual
scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a
research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct.”
And there we have it. The editor of a prestigious medical journal
that has published peer-reviewed data since 1823 has openly admitted
that the corrupt have indeed infiltrated the science community and its
media outlets. Surely, this isn’t news to many, yet millions of readers
have been and will continue to be deceived by the label of
“peer-reviewed” in spite of this blatant confession.
What one can find almost laughable is that this isn’t the first time
an editor of a prestigious medical journal has come forward and declared
the science community and its publications to be manipulated and
corrupt. In 2009, Dr. Marcia Angell of the New England Journal of Medicine wrote:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical
research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted
physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in
this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two
decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”
What does this information tell us? The most obvious implication is
simply that we are being lied to by the very people we trust to explore
the world around us and help us better understand it. Furthermore, it
also poses a crucial question: how deep do the roots of corruption reach
in the field of information? How much of what we think we know has
actually been the result of manipulated data? Can it be fixed? Richard
Horton, editor of the medical journal Lancet, has this to say:
“Part of the problem is that no-one is incentivised to be right.
Instead, scientists are incentivised to be productive and innovative.
Would a Hippocratic Oath for science help? Certainly don’t add more
layers of research red tape. Instead of changing incentives, perhaps one
could remove incentives altogether. Or insist on replicability
statements in grant applications and research papers. Or emphasise
collaboration, not competition. Or insist on preregistration of
protocols. Or reward better pre and post publication peer review. Or
improve research training and mentorship. Or implement the
recommendations from our Series on increasing research value, published
last year. One of the most convincing proposals came from outside the
biomedical community. Tony Weidberg is a Professor of Particle Physics
at Oxford. Following several high-profile errors, the particle physics
community now invests great effort into intensive checking and
rechecking of data prior to publication. By fi ltering results through
independent working groups, physicists are encouraged to criticise. Good
criticism is rewarded. The goal is a reliable result, and the
incentives for scientists are aligned around this goal.”
This article (Editor of Prestigious Medical Journal Says “Science has Taken a Turn into Darkness”) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and TheAntiMedia.org. Tune in! The Anti-Media radio show airs Monday through Friday @ 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Help us fix our typos: edits@theantimedia.org.
4379
4
0
25
4
Sponsored by RevContent
From the Web
Citation/ Source : http://theantimedia.org/editor-of-prestigious-medical-journal-says-science-has-taken-a-turn-into-darkness/
No comments:
Post a Comment