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?
One quote from my webpage that is totally relevant here:
* w w w .humanticsfoundation . com /
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary
depends upon his not understanding it.
Upton Sinclair
* 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
One quote from my webpage that is totally relevant here:
* w w w .humanticsfoundation . com /
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary
depends upon his not understanding it.
Upton Sinclair
* 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
Re: Is the finding source the most relevent part of a study?
Ilena Rose <BIA@mundo . com > wrote in part:
>"The biggest threat to science," writes Jennifer Washburn, is "the
>decline of government support..."
Yep.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
Ilena Rose <BIA@mundo . com > wrote in part:
>"The biggest threat to science," writes Jennifer Washburn, is "the
>decline of government support..."
Yep.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
Next: Another study finds flu shots ineffective: but can cod liver oil help prevent...
Previous: Do flu shots work?
