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

331–340 of 491 posts

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

#331

Post by BeetleB »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #213
robomartin wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you a scientist? How is that relevant to my comment?

You suggest how scientists can act, their motivations, their freedom to disagree with the status quo, or those higher up the ladder in their field etc. You suggest how scientists will lose grants if they produce inconvenient science, etc etc. So I ask again. Are you a scientist? Have you written a grant application? Have you been punished? I AM a scientist, and I have never seen this hypothetical world.

From what I saw while pursuing a PhD, what he says is true for some fields (I was in a hard science).

Disagreeing with status quo is given lip service, but in my particular subdiscipline, I saw trendy theories come and go. It certainly was more work to get published if your paper suggests the trend is not true (more likely to argue with referees, etc). This is common when experimental data is not available.

> You suggest how scientists will lose grants if they produce inconvenient science

Again, not a direct connection in my discipline, but trendy work is easier to get funding, and if you counter the trend, you'll have trouble getting papers published in good journals, which affects your funding.

In my time there, the common advice to new faculty members was "Do fun/risky research only after you get tenure."

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

#332

Post by mr_toad »

dpifke wrote: post #106
dqpb wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you be sued for asking questions?

You can be sued by anyone, for anything, at any time. Whether or not that lawsuit has any merit is irrelevant. With certain exceptions based on subject matter (e.g. SLAPP) or jurisdiction, it still costs money to hire a lawyer to defend against the suit.

> Whether or not that lawsuit has any merit is irrelevant.

That’s not entirely true. In some jurisdictions persistent baseless legal action, or even empty threats of legal action can themselves be considered a cause for action.

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

#333

Post by tshaddox »

sjwalter wrote: post #324
tshaddox wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the alternative to following the science? Following people who are not scientists and who are explicitly making things up? This sounds a lot like "most plane crashes are due to pilot error, so maybe we should give non-pilots control of the planes."

The alternative that I choose is to have a fucking identity and constantly build up strength along every axis possible, yes even physical. Be a rock. This doesn't mean be hard-headed and unpersuadable, but it also means not being lead around by statistics and citations and "studies". Know who you are, trust your instincts, and do what is right for you. The fact is, unless you're actually the scientist doing the scien…

> Know how to feed yourself and stay fit and healthy.

Well, okay. I was kinda with you when you were saying you can ignore most health science headlines, but then you seem to change your mind and hint that there must be some way of gaining knowledge about one’s health without science. So how then? Common sense and personal experimentation are only going to get you so far.

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

#334

Post by tshaddox »

sjwalter wrote: post #327
Niksko wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, the risk/reward equation is confounded by people who interpret any kind of public health measures as a slippery slope towards fascism.

Bad take. People are rightly wary of public health when public health openly discredits itself--you'd have to be an absolute imbecile to believe, e.g., covid was a huge risk during anti-lockdown protests, but was not at all a concern during BLM protests.

When did “public health openly discredit itself” in such a way?

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

#335

Post by magnetowasright »

nimish wrote: post #298
sjwalter wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also especially ironic considering The Lancet published a totally fabricated study that supposedly demonstrated how dangerous a Trump-touted Covid treatment was. https://www.the-scientist.com/features/the-surgisphere-scand...

The Lancet is no stranger to promoting pseudoscience. John Snow challenging the miasma theory of cholera really ground its gears. Plus ça change...

Can’t forget the Andrew Wakefield vaccine nonsense they platformed as well

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

#336

Post by krige »

mr_toad wrote: post #329
nixpulvis wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what should be done? Hire your own lawyers to go after them pro bono? Write an article and send it to the papers? This kind of thing needs to be shamed and punished. While I agree that the institutions can be expected to cover there ass, there must be a course of action.

> While I agree that the institutions can be expected to cover there ass Should we have that expectation? If a person does it we call it concealing evidence, intimidation, and perverting the course of justice. On the other hand, if they confess right away, we treat them leniently. Why should institutions differ?

Because institutions are not individuals. They do not possess a conscience, morality, or any other humane emotion that makes leniency possible and produce favourable outcomes.

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

#337

Post by StanislavPetrov »

WalterBright wrote: post #166
pjc50 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At least with privately funded research, the people providing the money aren't going to fund bullshit fake research They absolutely are if it helps them promote something. Cigarettes and asbestos industries helped produce plenty of fake safety studies. The problem is that research has been marketized; you have to "sell" your proposal to get funding, so naturally you big it up as much as possible. And thus the incen…

If you are personally funding Professor X to do some research say, on making a better LCD display, and Professor X comes up with nothing but personal aggrandizement passed off as "research", are you personally likely to fund him some more? I seriously doubt it. Any more than you'd continue taking your car to an auto shop that took your money but didn't fix it.

You aren't paying Professor X to fix your product, you are paying Professor X to endorse your product.

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

#338

Post by throwawayboise »

mr_toad wrote: post #332
dpifke wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can be sued by anyone, for anything, at any time. Whether or not that lawsuit has any merit is irrelevant. With certain exceptions based on subject matter (e.g. SLAPP) or jurisdiction, it still costs money to hire a lawyer to defend against the suit.

> Whether or not that lawsuit has any merit is irrelevant. That’s not entirely true. In some jurisdictions persistent baseless legal action, or even empty threats of legal action can themselves be considered a cause for action.

Also, to sue someone for more than a "small claims" amount you need a lawyer and most lawyers will not bother with cases that they are obviously not going to win, and they are ethically bound to tell you that you have no case.

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

#339

Post by magnetowasright »

As a layperson that feels effected by this issue (as I’m Autistic) I feel powerless, both to really understand this at depth, or how to do anything to fix this. Advocacy is moving things forward but I don’t know if that’s managed to reach researchers or effect the kind and quality of research being done. Luckily some of the more overtly harmful trash ‘research’ that underpins a lot of the medical model and (lack of) understanding about Autism is being dismissed/is now somewhat regarded as contentious (Baron-Cohen’s awful ‘Theory of Mind’), but the harm is done, and things are very slow to change. The dialogue and research around queer issues went through a lot of changes like homosexuality eventually being removed from the DSM and the trans related stuff has been getting better. How do we make progress like that for Autism? More Autistic researchers researching Autism? Actually involving Autistic people is a must.

My comment is a little messy, and I don’t really know what I’m talking about, I’m just wanting to voice a concern from a different perspective.

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

#340

Post by WalterBright »

_jal wrote: post #187
WalterBright wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good point. But if the companies are paying for research in how to build better products, they aren't going to pay for bullshit research.

They pay for bullshit research all the time. It comes from the advertising budget instead of the development budget.

If they were paying for bullshit research, they got what they wanted. Otherwise, they'd stop.
Post reply on HN