Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

blogs.bmj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 491 posts

Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

#171

Post by jonnycomputer »

wxnx wrote: post #93

I work on large multi-center clinical trials as a machine learning engineer. One of my projects involves the semi-automation of the detection of fraudulent data. There's one link in the chain here missing that some people here seem to be ignoring. The authors of this post (while entirely correct) draw no link between "bad data" (which is doubtlessly responsible for a large number of "bad papers"/"bad trials") and "ba…

I think institutional incentives matter a lot, and the reasonably lucrative prospect of careers outside of academia if things don't work out. That is perhaps why we see such stark regional differences.

No one I know has committed fraud in their research. I've seen mistakes in their code however, but that is another story.

Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

#172

Post by arcticfox »

dpatru wrote: post #49

As shown both in the article and in the comments, scientific establishment seems content to tolerate fraud. But when research goes against big money interests, suddenly standards become very strict. See how Andrew Wakefield was treated. https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452

> See how Andrew Wakefield was treated.

Are you implying that he was let off easy? Should have gone to jail, IMO: "The panel found he had subjected 11 children to invasive tests such as lumbar punctures and colonoscopies that they did not need, without ethical approval."

Performing unfounded experiments on children while committing fraud should be treated as criminal, not simply reputation-destroying, IMO.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/jan/28/andrew-wakef...

(I understand we need to protect researchers from some liabilities in the ethical pursuit of progress, but he was so far over the line that the "slippery slope" argument is kind of silly. Should medical researchers be immune to all prosecution no matter what they do or what lies they tell?)

Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

#173

Post by UnFleshedOne »

swayvil wrote: post #122

If lying is the more profitable course then you can trust that it's a lie. Is that capitalism? Is that what we're looking at here?

It's humans. You should look at how research was done in communist countries or anywhere with strong ideology. People are built to game systems.

Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

#174

Post by menzoic »

injidup wrote: post #20

I recently had the privilege of trying to do the right thing when I identified fraudulent research carried out by an institution in Austria. The initial response of the institution was positive but when I pressed for further details on how such things could happen suddenly nobody anymore would take my call. The research was paid for by a private company to pimp a nonsense product. The research was never published in…

It seems well intentioned, but I'm not surprised at all about the outcome. I don't think you can expect the institution to implicate themselves like that. You have to realize that preventing legal and financial liabilities is the #1 priority for institutions. Unfortunately this includes when they are wrong. Even if the employees are "good" their lawyers will advise them against providing any details like that and most are afraid of retaliation. Anyone asking questions like that is the enemy to them. This type of behavior is bad for society but fully expected giving the incentives and consequnces of telling the truth.

Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

#175

Post by hellbannedguy »

bserge wrote: post #165
MeinBlutIstBlau wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a personal philosophy on most health oriented fads: if someone is actively trying to sell something, it's snake oil. Too many people are looking for everlasting life that they're okay with being swindled in the pursuit of it. Naive enough to believe that people are honest when promoting products they're were paid to promote.

You can pair it with: if it works, it's controlled. Meaning you can't get it without prescription and have to go through the tortures of a health "care" system.

This needs to end.

I would take a pharmaceutical/drug related test (administered through the state), and it could be comprehensive; If I could renew my long term prescriptions.

The pharmacist wants to see a blood panel before refilling, fine, I should be able to order one.

(Only on long term medications (Blood pressure, diabetes, and most psychiatric drugs within reason) , and never antibiotics)

Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

#176

Post by menzoic »

askonomm wrote: post #146
beebeepka wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's how things work in most European countries. Yes, there are costs but they will be covered by the loser. No way this person loses against these particular fraudsters

Also, a lot of the cases these lawsuits in EU countries are thrown out because of how absurd they are.

It still cost time and money to get to that point

Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

#177

Post by joshuaissac »

adolph wrote: post #85
zucker42 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well of course I'm not going to believe blatantly fraudulent "science". That has nothing to do whether or not I would take a COVID vaccine (I have). Trying to suppress the truth that there is shoddy or false research to keep up appearances is ridiculous. There's something between ignoring scientific evidence you dislike and credulously taking everything a scientist says as fact. And the "dangers of misinformation" ha…

What is your plan for identifying the "blatantly fraudulent?" How do you know your medical provider agrees with you about what is "blatantly fraudulent?"

> What is your plan for identifying the "blatantly fraudulent?"

One way is to assume that all health research is fraudulent, unless proven otherwise through replication by multiple unrelated parties.

Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

#178

Post by btilly »

lumost wrote: post #168
robomartin wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of the problems I have with the absolute freak show that climate science/global-warming/saving-the-planet has become. It is, at a minimum, a triangle of bad actors with one corner being politicians --fear-based vote harvesting--, the second being business --jump on the bandwagon and print money...facilitated by politicians who want votes in exchange for fear mongering-- and, finally, religious-based detra…

You know, I've seen an increasing trend towards mediocrity and outright fraud across multiple public and private institutions that reward individuals based on some power law. If the author of the most cited paper in a field is going to get all the grants, and a standard "useful" paper is going to get no continued funding - then researchers will push to make their work sensational. Eventually the professors and everyo…

https://www.sciencealert.com/non-replicable-studies-make-the... may interest you. Papers that can't replicate get cited more than papers that can.

In other words if your goal is to craft a paper that draws attention, that's harder if you're being meticulous about limiting yourself to saying to what evidence shows is clearly true.

Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

#179

Post by diognesofsinope »

peytn wrote: post #2

No, but you need to be able to ask people who’re “in the know,” e.g. > When Roberts contacted one of the journals the editor responded that “I wouldn’t trust the data.” People already know what the bullshit results are.

Similar to how in psychology replication studies when they asked professors to predict which studies would and wouldn't replicate I think they were ~75% correct.

Replication was ~50%.

They have an idea of what is bullshit, but there's a very strong culture of 'don't call others out on bad research'

Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

#180

Post by sjwalter »

"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness."

Richard Horton, current editor of The Lancet: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

Post reply on HN