Studies funded by pharmaceutical companies frequently validate their own product. Ones that don't are unlikely to be published. A competitor may be "handicapped" to help make the company's drug appear better. Researchers are also likely to fish for a result among the study. (Perhaps Asian men between 51 and 60 show a better result.)
Even outside pharma, there is plenty of bad science. Selective publication results in plenty of studies not being passed. Various means of p-hacking may be used to find interesting results in studies. Natural variation may be mistaken from something significant. The placebo effect can be a very real thing. (Improvements can even be seen when patients are given a pill that they know is a placebo.) The quest for a "magic pill" can lead to many cures of limited value being common.
The communication of results can also impact the reception of studies. Bigger numbers get more press. However, without understanding the scope of the dataset, they may be irrelevant. Something may appear to cause a "doubling", but that may be only going from 1 in 1000 to 2 in 1000. It could have just as well been a freak account. There are also plenty of "smooth talking" experts that may have little training or even understanding of basic science. It is common for them (as well as the public in general) to put credit in research that backs up their view, while finding faults in studies that don't. Sometimes "scientific" explanations can be given that have little grounding in science (such as for homeopathy's water memory.)
The book ends with an analysis of the link between vaccines and autism. There were a number of players involved. A doctor was working with patients that wanted to file lawsuits due to autism diagnoses. Media was happy to jump on the story (but only some time after initial publication.) There were plenty of poorly done studies, bad interpretation of data and selective publication that all added to a scare with little basis in reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment