TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

There is a worrying amount of fraud in medical research

296 点作者 martincmartin大约 2 年前

25 条评论

dadrian大约 2 年前
As a reminder, peer review is not designed adversarially. It is not supposed to catch people who are fraudulent before they publish---that's the point of replication (which happens rarily). Peer review is designed to ensure a the publication as a packaged work of science describes a valid experiment. But you're necessarily assuming that the authors did what they said they did. As a peer reviewer, you're ensuring that what the authors said they did constitutes valid science.
评论 #34918869 未加载
评论 #34920222 未加载
评论 #34923560 未加载
评论 #34920229 未加载
apienx大约 2 年前
&gt; &quot;Going by these numbers, roughly one in 1,000 papers gets retracted [..] that something more like one in 50 papers has results which are unreliable because of fabrication, plagiarism or serious errors.&quot;<p>I&#x27;d say these are underestimates. Let me add that 80%+ of papers are useless. The only &quot;value&quot; they provide is to the person getting academically promoted and&#x2F;or building their publishing portfolio&#x2F;cred.
评论 #34916549 未加载
评论 #34916602 未加载
评论 #34919425 未加载
parton大约 2 年前
If you were to ask experts in a given subfield which papers are reliable, I&#x27;m sure they would be able to tell you. The problem is that there&#x27;s no process in science for expert consensus to make it to out to doctors&#x2F;laypeople.<p>People assume that peer review means a paper is good, which couldn&#x27;t be farther from the truth. Science journalists aren&#x27;t any better, they care more about hype than consensus. Honestly, it&#x27;s dangerous to give a random peer reviewed article to someone who doesn&#x27;t have broad knowledge of the field.<p>Maybe we need middle-ground journals that publish review articles at the level of a Scientific American reader?
评论 #34918408 未加载
评论 #34919098 未加载
评论 #34919125 未加载
评论 #34918118 未加载
评论 #34918316 未加载
Gatsky大约 2 年前
I maintain that the best analogy for life sciences research is naval exploration. Some people tell tales of their great voyages but never set foot on a boat. Some sailed, yet found nothing, and still spin a story to avoid embarrassment. And some actually found America. Science is obsessed with these stories enshrined in journal articles, which are elevated to the status of artefacts of knowledge, complete with Excel spreadsheets in the supplementary info. Creating such artefacts determines everything in your scientific career. That is the actual problem in my opinion. Of course people will want to fake these powerful status symbols.
i-use-nixos-btw大约 2 年前
I recall reading -somewhere - about a similar problem in psychology journals. The problem there is worse, in terms of correctness, because the journals don’t publish negative results, <i>including</i> when the negative results disprove a previously published paper.<p>In medical journals, though, the problem is worse because it is more likely to kill someone.
评论 #34916723 未加载
评论 #34916728 未加载
评论 #34916952 未加载
PicassoCTs大约 2 年前
Im advocating for &quot;You keep what you kill&quot; rules in science.<p>If you disprove a paper or proof a study can not be replicated, you get the funds of the scientist, subtracted from his&#x2F;her current funding. Make bad science fund the good science and make de-replication a for profit endeavor. There can be all funding in the world for quack science, but if it can be debunked and is debunked, it will finance real science.
评论 #34920351 未加载
评论 #34918267 未加载
评论 #34919400 未加载
评论 #34920932 未加载
pella大约 2 年前
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.md&#x2F;KsZJL" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.md&#x2F;KsZJL</a>
ubj大约 2 年前
Retraction Watch [1] is a great source of additional examples of unethical behavior in scientific research.<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;retractionwatch.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;retractionwatch.com&#x2F;</a>
评论 #34918089 未加载
jszymborski大约 2 年前
Since we&#x27;re on the topic of bad science, the first figure in that article (Pants on Fire) is a pretty bad one. The units on the Y-axis are not specified (strike one), but it looks to be the _unnormalized_ number of papers retracted each year.<p>The yearly retraction _rate_ (i.e. the number of retracted paper per number of papers published) is what is relevant here. The number of journals have and papers have exploded since &#x27;96.
tchvil大约 2 年前
This blog post from the BMJ wasn&#x27;t particularly comforting when published in the middle of covid: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blogs.bmj.com&#x2F;bmj&#x2F;2021&#x2F;07&#x2F;05&#x2F;time-to-assume-that-health-research-is-fraudulent-until-proved-otherwise&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blogs.bmj.com&#x2F;bmj&#x2F;2021&#x2F;07&#x2F;05&#x2F;time-to-assume-that-hea...</a><p>Richard Smith was the editor of The BMJ until 2004.<p>Competing interest: RS was a cofounder of the Committee on Medical Ethics (COPE), for many years the chair of the Cochrane Library Oversight Committee, and a member of the board of the UK Research Integrity Office.
breck大约 2 年前
I&#x27;ve been in medical research for 5 years and saw so much fraud and incompetence my guess is 20% of it is honest work.<p>But have hope, we&#x27;re gonna fix it: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;cancerdb.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;cancerdb.com&#x2F;</a>
shellfishgene大约 2 年前
If you look at why papers are found out as fraudulent and retracted it&#x27;s usually very dumb mistakes, such as the examples from the article, copying data and&#x2F;or text from elsewhere, making up numbers that are obvously implausible, and cloning&#x2F;photoshopping figures or parts thereof, even within the paper. Given how easy it is to avoid these beginner mistakes the percentage of fake data must be so much higher than the actual retractions. Especially from the paper mills where faking data is done by professional fraudsters.
wrp大约 2 年前
This looks like a good opportunity to ask a question I&#x27;ve had for a long time. In what field(s) of research is it respectable to ask, &quot;Has this paper been peer reviewed?&quot;<p>I&#x27;ve spent nearly four decades working mostly in academia with scientists, engineers, social scientists of various degrees of rigor, and even occasional humanities types. I don&#x27;t think I have ever been in a group where someone did or would raise the issue of peer review when discussing the quality of a report.<p>In all groups I&#x27;ve associated with, you are expected to know enough about your field to be able to assess for yourself the quality of a paper as you read it. Relying on some anonymous reviewer&#x27;s judgement to justify your acceptance of a report would cast serious doubt on your own judgement.<p>I&#x27;ve been trying to note just who raises this issue and they appear to be most often in life sciences&#x2F;medicine. I&#x27;ve never worked in that general area, but my impression is that knowledge of statistics and methodology is rather weaker than in other scientific fields. My (perhaps uncharitable) theory is that peer review has become a gateway for automatic acceptance because the average technical expertise of readers is so low that they cannot evaluate for themselves.
pedalpete大约 2 年前
I feel this is an area where AI could be helpful in recognizing suspected fraudulent, or potentially just poorly studied research.
评论 #34920679 未加载
评论 #34920398 未加载
renewiltord大约 2 年前
I&#x27;ve talked about an experience someone in my family had before. Straight up fabrication in a lab, and it wouldn&#x27;t be really detectable until you attempt to replicate and then check the pictures after.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=25926188" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=25926188</a>
corbulo大约 2 年前
P hacking more generally has been an issue for some time.<p>Its difficult to trust really almost any study even if you find parts of it to be reliable.<p>Take one or a few stats courses to find out how easy it is to smudge data with no one being the wiser. Its a real problem.
评论 #34917226 未加载
refurb大约 2 年前
I think the one piece people miss is that scientists dont assume the literature is reliable.<p>When i worked in the lab, it was well know that a good part of the literature can not be replicated.<p>On top of that, specific journals and labs have reputations for less-than-quality research. If a paper comes out, its not assumed to be true until proven otherwise (usually expanded upon by others). The only time that&#x27;s different is if it comes from certain labs that are known to have a good track record.<p>So its not like shoddy research is causing other scientists to waste time except maybe the time spent reading the paper.
shellfishgene大约 2 年前
I wonder if journals, especially medical ones, could be sued if they don&#x27;t react and redact studies in time once notified of problems, and patients get ineffective or even detrimental treatment based on those papers.
machina_ex_deus大约 2 年前
96% vaccine effectiveness! Into absolute uselessness when deployed to the masses.<p>As someone who believed them and took the vaccine, that was the last time I&#x27;m trusting medical research. I won&#x27;t be fooled again, and from now on research won&#x27;t be enough to make any personal decision, I&#x27;m waiting until independent evaluation in the real world happens and there are enough anecdotes to see that it really works as advertised.<p>The entire coronavirus debacle has corroded the trust in medical establishment to zero. I think it&#x27;s justified and we&#x27;ve just been ignorant to the fraud, it took a lie so big and obvious to really wake people up.
dadjoker大约 2 年前
Isn&#x27;t peer review supposed to catch stuff like this? I mean, that&#x27;s supposedly the &quot;gold standard&quot; for studies, right?
评论 #34918571 未加载
评论 #34918995 未加载
est大约 2 年前
The funding gotta go somewhere somehow.
ekianjo大约 2 年前
They only realize it now?
_fol8大约 2 年前
The major journals have absolutely no accountability. In any other market, if the product doesn&#x27;t work or harms someone the company goes out of business or the maker is sued. Not so in journals. So, why do we accept it? Because there&#x27;s no other way for the layman to determine what makes a good professor, because by definition, they are smarter than us (or at least they&#x27;re supposed to be), and so we (the general public) are not able to tell if they are good at what they do or not.<p>So - the answer we have is peer review, which is just the foxes guarding the hen house. There&#x27;s no other solution that&#x27;s been proposed that makes any sense in a self reinforcing market manner. Having some post-docs suddenly become concerned about this and hire a bunch of undergraduates to start using to comb excel with spreadsheets will be useful until everyone loses interest. The price of a can of Coca-Cola isn&#x27;t useful until people lose interest - it&#x27;s market priced by millions of customers at every minute of every day.<p>Until there&#x27;s a solution to this problem that makes sense this will keep happening over and over again.
评论 #34917235 未加载
评论 #34917163 未加载
评论 #34918861 未加载
评论 #34918401 未加载
评论 #34920812 未加载
评论 #34919775 未加载
etidorhpa大约 2 年前
No surprise here. Just put together a bunch of data and make up the statistics. No one&#x27;s the wiser. &quot;Now hurry and let me sell Oxycontin to children&quot; -FDA
评论 #34917823 未加载
bmacho大约 2 年前
Who would you trust? People that -are-doing-it-their-whole-life- that have an interest to lie to you, or a correct sounding reasoning and the wisdom of billions of people for milleniums?
评论 #34917462 未加载