Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Is the finding source the most relevent part of a study?
Is the finding source the most relevent part of a study?
Thought this was quite relevant ... thanks for the post Vince.
* archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/167/19/2047?rss=1
Conclusions:
The type of funding may have determinant effects on
the design of studies and on the interpretation of findings: funding
by the industry is associated with design features less likely to lead
to finding statistically significant adverse effects and with a more
favorable clinical interpretation of such findings. Disclosure of
conflicts of interest should be strengthened for a more balanced
opinion on the safety of drugs. '
* ilenarose.blogspot . com
Health Lover
* ilena-rosenthal.blogspot . com
Retail Research Is Hurting Science
Source: Discover magazine, October 11, 2007
* w w w .prwatch.org/node/6571
"The biggest threat to science," writes Jennifer Washburn, is "the
decline of government support ... and the growing dominance of private
spending over American research." In 1965, the U.S. government funded
more than 60 percent of research, while in 2006, 65 percent of
research was privately funded. Even some industry leaders are
concerned that basic research, which "drives innovation 10 to 15 years
out," is being shortchanged in favor of applied research focused on
marketable products. Multiple analyses have shown "that the effect of
industry funding on the research outcome is huge" -- a particularly
troubling phenomenon for medical research. "Big Pharma now finances
approximately 70 percent of the nation's clinical drug research," and
of that, "an estimated 75 percent flows to for-profit contract
research firms. ... In 2001, the editors of 12 leading medical
journals ... expressed their shock at what was happening to
independent scientific inquiry." Government research is increasingly
privatized to firms like Sciences International, while "most of these
federal agencies lack even the most rudimentary tools that a medical
journal editor would use to assess the quality and scientific
integrity of industry-funded research."
Thought this was quite relevant ... thanks for the post Vince.
* archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/167/19/2047?rss=1
Conclusions:
The type of funding may have determinant effects on
the design of studies and on the interpretation of findings: funding
by the industry is associated with design features less likely to lead
to finding statistically significant adverse effects and with a more
favorable clinical interpretation of such findings. Disclosure of
conflicts of interest should be strengthened for a more balanced
opinion on the safety of drugs. '
* ilenarose.blogspot . com
Health Lover
* ilena-rosenthal.blogspot . com
Retail Research Is Hurting Science
Source: Discover magazine, October 11, 2007
* w w w .prwatch.org/node/6571
"The biggest threat to science," writes Jennifer Washburn, is "the
decline of government support ... and the growing dominance of private
spending over American research." In 1965, the U.S. government funded
more than 60 percent of research, while in 2006, 65 percent of
research was privately funded. Even some industry leaders are
concerned that basic research, which "drives innovation 10 to 15 years
out," is being shortchanged in favor of applied research focused on
marketable products. Multiple analyses have shown "that the effect of
industry funding on the research outcome is huge" -- a particularly
troubling phenomenon for medical research. "Big Pharma now finances
approximately 70 percent of the nation's clinical drug research," and
of that, "an estimated 75 percent flows to for-profit contract
research firms. ... In 2001, the editors of 12 leading medical
journals ... expressed their shock at what was happening to
independent scientific inquiry." Government research is increasingly
privatized to firms like Sciences International, while "most of these
federal agencies lack even the most rudimentary tools that a medical
journal editor would use to assess the quality and scientific
integrity of industry-funded research."
Re: Is the finding source the most relevent part of a study?
On Oct 24, 7:50 pm, Ilena Rose <B...@mundo . com > wrote:
> Thought this was quite relevant ... thanks for the post Vince.
>
> * archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/167/19/2047?rss=1
> Conclusions:
> The type of funding may have determinant effects on
> the design of studies and on the interpretation of findings: funding
> by the industry is associated with design features less likely to lead
> to finding statistically significant adverse effects and with a more
> favorable clinical interpretation of such findings. Disclosure of
> conflicts of interest should be strengthened for a more balanced
> opinion on the safety of drugs. '
>
> * ilenarose.blogspot . com
> Health Lover
>
> * ilena-rosenthal.blogspot . com
>
> Retail Research Is Hurting Science
> Source: Discover magazine, October 11, 2007
>
> * w w w .prwatch.org/node/6571
>
> "The biggest threat to science," writes Jennifer Washburn, is "the
> decline of government support ... and the growing dominance of private
> spending over American research." In 1965, the U.S. government funded
> more than 60 percent of research, while in 2006, 65 percent of
> research was privately funded. Even some industry leaders are
> concerned that basic research, which "drives innovation 10 to 15 years
> out," is being shortchanged in favor of applied research focused on
> marketable products. Multiple analyses have shown "that the effect of
> industry funding on the research outcome is huge" -- a particularly
> troubling phenomenon for medical research. "Big Pharma now finances
> approximately 70 percent of the nation's clinical drug research," and
> of that, "an estimated 75 percent flows to for-profit contract
> research firms. ... In 2001, the editors of 12 leading medical
> journals ... expressed their shock at what was happening to
> independent scientific inquiry." Government research is increasingly
> privatized to firms like Sciences International, while "most of these
> federal agencies lack even the most rudimentary tools that a medical
> journal editor would use to assess the quality and scientific
> integrity of industry-funded research."
You are exactly right researchers at one time where largly academics
who wanted an arm lenghts distance from the sales end and where most
offen funded by public sources. Today most'leadeds in the field take
so much money from pharma they have effectively made thenselfs sales
reps instead of researches.The actual research is effected itis far
easier to create anither statin ,or ulcer drug . And get a share of
that market than do the basic research in uncharted and perhaps
unprofitable areas.
Thanks Vince
On Oct 24, 7:50 pm, Ilena Rose <B...@mundo . com > wrote:
> Thought this was quite relevant ... thanks for the post Vince.
>
> * archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/167/19/2047?rss=1
> Conclusions:
> The type of funding may have determinant effects on
> the design of studies and on the interpretation of findings: funding
> by the industry is associated with design features less likely to lead
> to finding statistically significant adverse effects and with a more
> favorable clinical interpretation of such findings. Disclosure of
> conflicts of interest should be strengthened for a more balanced
> opinion on the safety of drugs. '
>
> * ilenarose.blogspot . com
> Health Lover
>
> * ilena-rosenthal.blogspot . com
>
> Retail Research Is Hurting Science
> Source: Discover magazine, October 11, 2007
>
> * w w w .prwatch.org/node/6571
>
> "The biggest threat to science," writes Jennifer Washburn, is "the
> decline of government support ... and the growing dominance of private
> spending over American research." In 1965, the U.S. government funded
> more than 60 percent of research, while in 2006, 65 percent of
> research was privately funded. Even some industry leaders are
> concerned that basic research, which "drives innovation 10 to 15 years
> out," is being shortchanged in favor of applied research focused on
> marketable products. Multiple analyses have shown "that the effect of
> industry funding on the research outcome is huge" -- a particularly
> troubling phenomenon for medical research. "Big Pharma now finances
> approximately 70 percent of the nation's clinical drug research," and
> of that, "an estimated 75 percent flows to for-profit contract
> research firms. ... In 2001, the editors of 12 leading medical
> journals ... expressed their shock at what was happening to
> independent scientific inquiry." Government research is increasingly
> privatized to firms like Sciences International, while "most of these
> federal agencies lack even the most rudimentary tools that a medical
> journal editor would use to assess the quality and scientific
> integrity of industry-funded research."
You are exactly right researchers at one time where largly academics
who wanted an arm lenghts distance from the sales end and where most
offen funded by public sources. Today most'leadeds in the field take
so much money from pharma they have effectively made thenselfs sales
reps instead of researches.The actual research is effected itis far
easier to create anither statin ,or ulcer drug . And get a share of
that market than do the basic research in uncharted and perhaps
unprofitable areas.
Thanks Vince
Re: Is the finding source the most relevent part of a study?
I agree that funding is something to be aware of as a source of bias,
but there are other sources of bias.
Read "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," by John
Ioannidis.
* medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
For example:
Corollary 5: The greater the financial and other interests and
prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research
findings are to be true. Conflicts of interest and prejudice may
increase bias, u. Conflicts of interest are very common in biomedical
research [26], and typically they are inadequately and sparsely
reported [26,27]. Prejudice may not necessarily have financial roots.
Scientists in a given field may be prejudiced purely because of their
belief in a scientific theory or commitment to their own findings.
Many otherwise seemingly independent, university-based studies may be
conducted for no other reason than to give physicians and researchers
qualifications for promotion or tenure. Such nonfinancial conflicts
may also lead to distorted reported results and interpretations.
Prestigious investigators may suppress via the peer review process the
appearance and dissemination of findings that refute their findings,
thus condemning their field to perpetuate false dogma. Empirical
evidence on expert opinion shows that it is extremely unreliable [28].
I agree that funding is something to be aware of as a source of bias,
but there are other sources of bias.
Read "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," by John
Ioannidis.
* medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
For example:
Corollary 5: The greater the financial and other interests and
prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research
findings are to be true. Conflicts of interest and prejudice may
increase bias, u. Conflicts of interest are very common in biomedical
research [26], and typically they are inadequately and sparsely
reported [26,27]. Prejudice may not necessarily have financial roots.
Scientists in a given field may be prejudiced purely because of their
belief in a scientific theory or commitment to their own findings.
Many otherwise seemingly independent, university-based studies may be
conducted for no other reason than to give physicians and researchers
qualifications for promotion or tenure. Such nonfinancial conflicts
may also lead to distorted reported results and interpretations.
Prestigious investigators may suppress via the peer review process the
appearance and dissemination of findings that refute their findings,
thus condemning their field to perpetuate false dogma. Empirical
evidence on expert opinion shows that it is extremely unreliable [28].
Re: Is the finding source the most relevent part of a study?
MarilynMann <mannm@comcast . net > wrote in part:
>I agree that funding is something to be aware of as a source of bias,
>but there are other sources of bias.
>
>Read "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," by John
>Ioannidis.
> * medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
>
>For example:
>
>Corollary 5: The greater the financial and other interests and
>prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research
>findings are to be true. Conflicts of interest and prejudice may
>increase bias, u. Conflicts of interest are very common in biomedical
>research [26], and typically they are inadequately and sparsely
>reported [26,27]. Prejudice may not necessarily have financial roots.
>Scientists in a given field may be prejudiced purely because of their
>belief in a scientific theory or commitment to their own findings.
>Many otherwise seemingly independent, university-based studies may be
>conducted for no other reason than to give physicians and researchers
>qualifications for promotion or tenure. Such nonfinancial conflicts
>may also lead to distorted reported results and interpretations.
>Prestigious investigators may suppress via the peer review process the
>appearance and dissemination of findings that refute their findings,
>thus condemning their field to perpetuate false dogma. Empirical
>evidence on expert opinion shows that it is extremely unreliable [28].
I think financial conflicts of interest are just one of many sources of bias
in the reporting of research, and probably not the main one.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
MarilynMann <mannm@comcast . net > wrote in part:
>I agree that funding is something to be aware of as a source of bias,
>but there are other sources of bias.
>
>Read "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," by John
>Ioannidis.
> * medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
>
>For example:
>
>Corollary 5: The greater the financial and other interests and
>prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research
>findings are to be true. Conflicts of interest and prejudice may
>increase bias, u. Conflicts of interest are very common in biomedical
>research [26], and typically they are inadequately and sparsely
>reported [26,27]. Prejudice may not necessarily have financial roots.
>Scientists in a given field may be prejudiced purely because of their
>belief in a scientific theory or commitment to their own findings.
>Many otherwise seemingly independent, university-based studies may be
>conducted for no other reason than to give physicians and researchers
>qualifications for promotion or tenure. Such nonfinancial conflicts
>may also lead to distorted reported results and interpretations.
>Prestigious investigators may suppress via the peer review process the
>appearance and dissemination of findings that refute their findings,
>thus condemning their field to perpetuate false dogma. Empirical
>evidence on expert opinion shows that it is extremely unreliable [28].
I think financial conflicts of interest are just one of many sources of bias
in the reporting of research, and probably not the main one.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
