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

80% of current drug applications in China failed to meet analysis requirements

sciencealert.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 47 posts

Re: 80% of current drug applications in China failed to meet analysis requirements

#11

Post by finid »

Odenwaelder wrote: post #2

In chinese culture, losing one's "face" is one of the worst things that can happen to a person. I'm wondering whether the fact that 80% of data has been fabricated is a result of that. As in, "I have to make my findings significant to not lose my face", or, "Presenting negative findings to my superior will make me lose my face". Maybe someone more familiar with this culture could elaborate.

Wait a minute!

That seems to be backward. Doesn't "losing face" come from being caught doing the wrong thing or being dishonest, so that the incentive to fabricate data for something as important as scientific research should be very, very low?

Re: 80% of current drug applications in China failed to meet analysis requirements

#12

Post by Odenwaelder »

finid wrote: post #11
Odenwaelder wrote: post #2

In chinese culture, losing one's "face" is one of the worst things that can happen to a person. I'm wondering whether the fact that 80% of data has been fabricated is a result of that. As in, "I have to make my findings significant to not lose my face", or, "Presenting negative findings to my superior will make me lose my face". Maybe someone more familiar with this culture could elaborate.

Wait a minute! That seems to be backward. Doesn't "losing face" come from being caught doing the wrong thing or being dishonest, so that the incentive to fabricate data for something as important as scientific research should be very, very low?

You might be right, depending on the culture's definition of "wrong". Let's hope you're right...

Re: 80% of current drug applications in China failed to meet analysis requirements

#13

Post by HillRat »

finid wrote: post #11
Odenwaelder wrote: post #2

In chinese culture, losing one's "face" is one of the worst things that can happen to a person. I'm wondering whether the fact that 80% of data has been fabricated is a result of that. As in, "I have to make my findings significant to not lose my face", or, "Presenting negative findings to my superior will make me lose my face". Maybe someone more familiar with this culture could elaborate.

Wait a minute! That seems to be backward. Doesn't "losing face" come from being caught doing the wrong thing or being dishonest, so that the incentive to fabricate data for something as important as scientific research should be very, very low?

I'm not sure that reputational risk is the same thing; I suspect one way to look at it is that a researcher who returns the null case is disrupting the organization by putting a lot of other peoples' work and assurances at risk. So there would be a significant amount of implicit social pressure to show results and maintain organizational harmony.

Re: 80% of current drug applications in China failed to meet analysis requirements

#14

Post by Alex3917 »

tlb wrote: post #4

It mentions 1622 current clinical trials. Of those, how many would be expected to be approved in a rational system? I wonder if the huge %age is due to a lot of low-quality applications mixed in with the serious ones. If the barrier to apply is sufficiently low, you would expect a Sturgeon's law dynamic.

> I wonder if the huge %age is due to a lot of low-quality applications mixed in with the serious ones.

I doubt it. Most clinical trial data in the U.S. is similarly fraudulent, but there isn't really any concept of high-quality vs low-quality applications like you might see with YC or whatever.

Instead, pharma companies tend to rely on the same set of 20 or 30 tricks to take chemical compounds that might be no better than placebos and make them look like wonder drugs. I've been keeping a tally of these tricks on my website:

http://www.alexkrupp.com/Citevault.html#pharmaceuticals

Re: 80% of current drug applications in China failed to meet analysis requirements

#16

Post by beeftime »

HillRat wrote: post #13
finid wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait a minute! That seems to be backward. Doesn't "losing face" come from being caught doing the wrong thing or being dishonest, so that the incentive to fabricate data for something as important as scientific research should be very, very low?

I'm not sure that reputational risk is the same thing; I suspect one way to look at it is that a researcher who returns the null case is disrupting the organization by putting a lot of other peoples' work and assurances at risk. So there would be a significant amount of implicit social pressure to show results and maintain organizational harmony.

having lived and worked in China for a few years, I can confirm you're dead on the money.

Re: 80% of current drug applications in China failed to meet analysis requirements

#17

Post by projektfu »

In the couple years I spent doing biology research, about 8 years ago, I was skeptical of most research from China because it already had a reputation already of being untrustworthy. But why stop at China?

I spent a good part of a year trying and failing to replicate an English study, and looking around for materials referenced in another study that simply don't exist, finally being told by the principal on that study that they mischaracterized the materials in the paper. Sometimes when you get the results you are hoping for, you publish, and you don't care if they were wrong, right?

Perhaps it would be better if scientists generally took a more skeptical view of others' publications and tried to replicate them in house. At conferences, instead of asking, "Where do we go from here", with the first study, ask, "What do I need to do to replicate this?"

Re: 80% of current drug applications in China failed to meet analysis requirements

#18

Post by psyc »

finid wrote: post #11
Odenwaelder wrote: post #2

In chinese culture, losing one's "face" is one of the worst things that can happen to a person. I'm wondering whether the fact that 80% of data has been fabricated is a result of that. As in, "I have to make my findings significant to not lose my face", or, "Presenting negative findings to my superior will make me lose my face". Maybe someone more familiar with this culture could elaborate.

Wait a minute! That seems to be backward. Doesn't "losing face" come from being caught doing the wrong thing or being dishonest, so that the incentive to fabricate data for something as important as scientific research should be very, very low?

No, because losing face is not really about morality or honesty in the first place - it's more important than honesty. The primary thing here is the sharp and pervasive divide between facade and reality. The facade is more important. There are a lot of cultures where fronting is the main thing. It's just particularly evident in China.

Re: 80% of current drug applications in China failed to meet analysis requirements

#19

Post by 794CD01 »

HillRat wrote: post #13
finid wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait a minute! That seems to be backward. Doesn't "losing face" come from being caught doing the wrong thing or being dishonest, so that the incentive to fabricate data for something as important as scientific research should be very, very low?

I'm not sure that reputational risk is the same thing; I suspect one way to look at it is that a researcher who returns the null case is disrupting the organization by putting a lot of other peoples' work and assurances at risk. So there would be a significant amount of implicit social pressure to show results and maintain organizational harmony.

That sounds like academia anywhere.

Re: 80% of current drug applications in China failed to meet analysis requirements

#20

Post by mike_hock »

finid wrote: post #11
Odenwaelder wrote: post #2

In chinese culture, losing one's "face" is one of the worst things that can happen to a person. I'm wondering whether the fact that 80% of data has been fabricated is a result of that. As in, "I have to make my findings significant to not lose my face", or, "Presenting negative findings to my superior will make me lose my face". Maybe someone more familiar with this culture could elaborate.

Wait a minute! That seems to be backward. Doesn't "losing face" come from being caught doing the wrong thing or being dishonest, so that the incentive to fabricate data for something as important as scientific research should be very, very low?

Being caught is the keyword.
Post reply on HN