HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

OT: science

Support Forums
>
Prostate Cancer
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 4/18/2016 1:09 PM (GMT 0)
We post and discuss a lot of studies here. Often, they conflict. So, just food for thought:
theweek.com/articles/618141/big-science-broken

There is a great section about the world of research in a book I recently read, and the incentive to publish or perish, and the incentive to stick with the conventional wisdom so you can get grants and be cited by other researchers. The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living by Jeff Volek, PhD, RD and Stephen Phinney, MD, PhD. I may try to paraphrase a paragraph or 2 from that later on.
Posted 4/18/2016 4:09 PM (GMT 0)
Billy Bob –

An excellent article! One that is saying a great deal that is true!

Having worked in a university library environment for my career, I had to smile at some of the examples given in the article, of the kind of research sloppiness that can exist in the scientific world. I could see it from time to time in some of the publications I cataloged for my library. I never saw a whole lot of such badly done publications, but I did see some.

So I'm still convinced that the vast majority of research done, at least in the academic world, is responsible and competent. But yes, the pressure of get tenure and otherwise "make a name for oneself" in one's academic discipline does indeed on occasion lead to the "cutting of corners" in some people's research.

And sometimes it goes beyond academic circles and spills over into the public media, much to the chagrin of those involved in it. Remember the announcement some years ago of the discovery of desktop "cold fusion" by two physicists at the University of Utah? What a sensation it caused, at least at first, until further investigation revealed that the announcement was premature, and the "limitless energy" that the "discovery" promised was only a fantasy.

But something else happened there at Utah during that incident that highlights the kind of problems which the article discusses. Almost as soon as the announcement was made, administrators at that school charged their lawyers to come with as quickly as possible a patent application for the supposed process, with the intent of generating millions of dollars in royalties for the school from future worldwide use of the "process." A valid discovery of cold fusion would change the energy needs of the world, but all some could see was dollar signs.

So various pressures to succeed in one's research are there, from "publish or perish" (that is, while working for tenure get your articles published in prestigious professional journals, or run the risk of being denied tenure, and thus be out of a job), to the university saying to the faculty "get us more grants," or "produce more successful graduate students," etc., etc.

Again, I don't believe the problem is particularly widespread, and, from my library perspective, I didn't see that it was occurring in one academic field more than in any other. (Overall, maybe 5 % of the materials I cataloged did seem to have such accuracy "issues?")

And the universities are certainly aware of these kinds of problems. For one thing there is general agreement that tenure has become harder to get at American colleges and universities, the standards for it having been made more rigorous and demanding. This supposedly is to insure that those who actually do get tenure have proved themselves to be competent researchers, and can be relied on to do quality research.

But the issues that the article discusses are valid ones, and ones that we would be wise to keep in mind when hearing, for example, announcements of new cancer "breakthroughs." Are they for real, or examples of another "cold fusion" incident?

I started a thread here a few weeks ago in which I expressed my impatience with the rate of scientific advancement in cancer research, generating a lively discussion in the process. But even while in a state of impatience, I would be the first to insist that all cancer research be conducted with the utmost of scientific rigor and standards.

It has to be done that way.
Posted 4/18/2016 5:11 PM (GMT 0)
Wow 81G, what an interesting response and 1st thread comment!

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 4/18/2016 4:20:35 PM (GMT-6)

Posted 4/18/2016 9:18 PM (GMT 0)
Interesting, to say the least. From what my daughter (PhD biochemist, did her graduate work at RPI (Troy NY), and post-doc research at the University of Rochester (NY), and then walked away from the research world) told me, what this article discusses is largely true, and in some ways it's even worse.

From what she said, the funders of research, whether it's corporate entities like drug companies or government agencies like NIH, want guaranteed outcomes, or the funding won't come. Which leads PI's to play it safe and do nothing but derivative work with minor tweaks to make it "original". The worst thing a researcher can do in a grant application is to suggest moving into an entirely new direction, or to propose attempting to question some long term bit of received wisdom.

Bottom line, there is NO original research being done, nothing groundbreaking is happening. Plus, as she told me, at least 50% of the energy expended by the PI's is scrambling for more funding. Success in the academic research world is determined by how many dollars one brings into the institution, and how many grad students the PI has working in his or her lab.

It's disturbing, to say the least.
Posted 4/18/2016 10:19 PM (GMT 0)
I'm going to paraphrase/sometimes quote some stuff , words about research by one who claims to be a researcher, from the book “the art and science of low carbohydrate living” by a Volek PhD/RD and Phinney, Md/PhD, that I think applies to the subject of this thread.

From Page 145: “ when a research paper appears in a peer review journal, we tend to think of it as something that can be believed is true until other studies come out proving it right or wrong. You make the observation and report it. Research later on will confirm or not. Plain vanilla science.

But i reality, when a research paper is published that reinforces what we already believe, we ( the mainstream consensus) treat it as dogma. ………………………. If this sounds overly cynical to you the reader, Please accept our apologies. But if you have ever tried to argue data over dogma, maybe this sounds familiar……………………………….
Every year or so, there's a high profile case in which a scientist makes up data to generate a high profile publication. This is clear scientific malfeasance. Fame, fortune and federal grants ride on high profile publications. Some of these people forfeit their research careers, and some go to jail.

But what we don't hear about is a much more common situation wear a scientist designs of study with a particular result in mind.(Billy Bob's words here: I'm thinking here of research on low carbohydrate diets versus low fat/ low calorie diets, where the carbohydrates are never really lowered enough to get much effect. Then it is announced in the media" no difference in low carb versus low-fat" Or"low fat superior to low-carb") say that your preliminary data tell you that you'll probably see the results you want after one week or two weeks, but it will probably not last longer than that. So then you design a study for just one or two weeks observation.

Or, what about just not publishing data and it turns out to be embarrassing, that is the opposite maybe from what your institution has been teaching? So shouldn't the peer review System catch these sorts of things to ensure proper scientific method and logical conclusions made from results? Yes, ideally this is true, but in reality this system is far from perfect. And has a strong tendency to favor findings that agree with the current consensus. Occasionally a reviewer made comment "your data do not support your conclusions”, but this is more of a rarity that it is the norm.

What would motivate a scientist to take such a chance? How about ”peer pressure”?

What we publish and what we cite: science, in general, and nutritional sciences in particular, have become highly conformist.. Smart scientist go to their scientific meetings, listen to the discussion, an come to understand what is acceptable And what is not. Those who ignore this readily available information do so at their own peril. Non-conformists tend to have trouble getting papers published and research grants funded.”…………………………………………………………………………………………..

Well, this turns out to be too long to cover here, and it would require too much semi quoting as it covers close to 20 pages in the book. The authors give several examples of what they are claiming, some fairly famous. The book was worth reading just for this chapter. Now the examples given mostly apply to nutritional science, but it could also apply to all science- or should I say all scientific research? What it tells me is that we must aggressively look for any bias in any studies we are considering. Although, that can be really hard to figure out for us laymen. For one example, if it is a drug study, how can we really know if the researcher(s) have some relationship, or hopes of a future relationship, with the drug company that stands to make billions if their drug gets approved by the FDA?

And have you ever wondered how it is that, over and over, the FDA approves some drug as safe and effective, only to limit it severely or pull it from the market a year or 2 later after some harm is found that did not show up in studies of thousands of patients costing millions of dollars? I’m sure they had the studies proving the drugs were safe and effective, but it turns out not so much.

Anyway, I thought this section of the book went well with the article Ilinked about sorry or false research.

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 4/18/2016 4:32:26 PM (GMT-6)

Posted 4/18/2016 10:31 PM (GMT 0)
Another interesting response, Halbert. Sounds like the OP article, and what the other guys I quoted from the book said, is not too far off base. Makes one wonder how any research could ever be expected to either show a- for example- vitamin or any non-prescription substance will help with a disease near as much as a billion dollar drug, and maybe without the drugs SEs. I mean, assuming such a thing actually existed(I'm not saying it does), who is going to actually be willing to fund or do such research? Especially when all your peers "know" it's impossible.

But OTOH, I can see a huge incentive to prove any non-prescription approach useless or even dangerous compared to the drug. Results which would not only save billions for the companies involved, but would meet with peer approval. We read all of these studies on everything, but their truthfulness must be considered carefully.
Posted 4/18/2016 10:44 PM (GMT 0)
Thanks for your thought-provoking posts,Billy Bob, Halbert and 81.

An interesting book that has a go at medical studies, 'Doctored Data', was written by a UK physician, Malcolm Kendrick.
Posted 4/18/2016 10:52 PM (GMT 0)
A couple of these posts are way too long to actually read. I just want to know if the sky is falling or not?
Posted 4/18/2016 11:02 PM (GMT 0)
An interesting book to read is titled "The Big Fat Lie" . I am only about 15% thru it. But it attempts to debunk the theory that fat is harmful to heart health. It points out all of the flaws as well as the medical politics involved in the scientific studies that led us all to believe that low fat is good for us, and high fat bad.
I'm convinced that nobody really knows anything. And I guess maybe there is no one answer for everyone, each individual has to find their own answer.
It's a shame that politics of medicine gets in the way of our ability to improve our health
Posted 4/19/2016 12:07 AM (GMT 0)
Jack, no the sky isn't exactly falling, but the reality is that those who pay the bills are attempting to determine the outcome of the research...and data that doesn't fit the (paid for) hypothesis is discarded.

One more comment to the OP, and I really don't want to go further than this comment--What REALLY ticks me off are those who work to discredit any scientific finding that contradicts their interpretation of sacred texts. The Universe IS 16 billion years old, folks, and the earth is 5 billion years old. More or less.
Posted 4/19/2016 12:11 AM (GMT 0)
Randy Quaid " Didn't I say that…didn't I… Thanks for posting the tie in to " panic in the ultra sensitive universe" Not sure why that is parenthetical…seemed like a cool thing to do... scool
Posted 4/19/2016 12:18 AM (GMT 0)
Oh…once the the truth leaks out…its hard to stop the flood gate…ain't a study in the can…dat can plug it..

Tyranny of thought is the last bastion of the blind leading the sighted… no book ends there…its seminal…honk honk...
Posted 4/19/2016 9:31 PM (GMT 0)
Low carb diets have used for many years by bodybuilders for dropping bodyfat during contest prep.

How the low carb diet affects prostate cancer, I personally have no idea, nor have I read any studies that might indicate any benefit but I do know from personal anecdote that blood lipids and bodyfat can be influenced .

My personal interest is my effort to hold down bodyfat gain from Eligard. This is more difficult than contest prep. Minimal test levels don't help much.
Posted 4/21/2016 12:57 AM (GMT 0)
www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/04/the_reproducibility_crisis_is_good_for_science.html
Posted 4/21/2016 1:10 AM (GMT 0)
BillyBob, that's a good article. And, yes, if more scientists care about actually producing reproducible data, then the data will get better.
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply