Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

47 of the 53 landmark cancer studies could not be replicated.

Cancer Research Medical Research 2012

  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 Nittany Lioness

Nittany Lioness

    Craving a little perspective.

  • Islander
  • 3,537 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 01:44 PM

http://news.yahoo.co...-174216262.html

Quote

The problem goes beyond cancer.
On Tuesday, a committee of the National Academy of Sciences heard testimony that the number of scientific papers that had to be retracted increased more than tenfold over the last decade; the number of journal articles published rose only 44 percent.
Ferric Fang of the University of Washington, speaking to the panel, said he blamed a hypercompetitive academic environment that fosters poor science and even fraud, as too many researchers compete for diminishing funding.

"The surest ticket to getting a grant or job is getting published in a high-profile journal," said Fang. "This is an unhealthy belief that can lead a scientist to engage in sensationalism and sometimes even dishonest behavior."

The academic reward system discourages efforts to ensure a finding was not a fluke. Nor is there an incentive to verify someone else's discovery. As recently as the late 1990s, most potential cancer-drug targets were backed by 100 to 200 publications. Now each may have fewer than half a dozen.

"If you can write it up and get it published you're not even thinking of reproducibility," said Ken Kaitin, director of the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development. "You make an observation and move on. There is no incentive to find out it was wrong."

Edited by Nittany Lioness, 01 April 2012 - 01:45 PM.

I'm cold Howard.jpg


#2 offworlder

offworlder

    pls don't kick offworlders, we can find a place too

  • Islander
  • 5,363 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 02:52 PM

from that piece,
' Part way through his project to reproduce promising studies, Begley met for breakfast at a cancer conference with the lead scientist of one of the problematic studies.
"We went through the paper line by line, figure by figure," said Begley. "I explained that we re-did their experiment 50 times and never got their result. He said they'd done it six times and got this result once, but put it in the paper because it made the best story. It's very disillusioning."

Such selective publication is just one reason the scientific literature is peppered with incorrect results. '
"(Do you read what they say online?) I check out all these scandalous rumours about me and Elijah Wood having beautiful sex with each other ... (are they true?) About Elijah and me being boyfriend and boyfriend? Absolutely true. We've been together for about nine years. I wooed him. No I just like a lot of stuff - I like that someone says one thing and it becomes fact. It's kind of fun." --Dominic Monaghan in a phone interview with Newsweek while buying DVDs at the store. :D

#3 Nittany Lioness

Nittany Lioness

    Craving a little perspective.

  • Islander
  • 3,537 posts

Posted 02 April 2012 - 05:19 AM

It occurs to me what is especially egregious about this is - these false leads, if you will, lead the research down certain paths - they want to pursue what makes the most sense to pursue ... and so time energy money is likely fruitlessly spent  ... or at the very least prioritizing the wrong ideas to be researched more seems to be happening.

I'm cold Howard.jpg




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Cancer Research, Medical Research, 2012

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users