Medical Science and Political Correctness

Science is a cruel master, from various points of view. Most studies don't give the answer expected. If people

start out with the idea that a study will support a particular policy, often it doesn't. Having been "inside the game"

for a long time, I would be skeptical that this study was discontinued because the answer wasn't what the policy

people wanted. Scientists make their living doing successful studies, but they are also expected to ruthlessly

critique others' studies from many points of view in a process called peer review, and in this process, they get no credit

for pulling their punches. The study design, the follow-through, the skill with which the data is analyzed, the

quality of the sample, and many other factors can cause the funding to be cancelled. Even with studies that hold

up under this relentless scrutiny, funding is always a problem. I haven't followed the NIH budget recently, but I

dare say that they are operating on lower budgets than in decades. So this could have been discontinued purely

for lack of funds. The public tends to suspect that study results are skewed and cooked, but in few other fields

is this less true. The quality of science education for most of the population is so poor that most barely know what

science is, good or bad. Most people have no rigorous exposure to the scientific method and what it demands.

It sounds elitist to point this out, like the speaker/writer is some sort of smarty pants, but having translated science

for the public for about 35 years, and with no claim to being a scientist myself, I think this is a fair representation of

how science works, and doesn't. Now when things are handed over the regulatory agencies and become subject to

political and economic pressures, of course, you get into a different world. But the science, for the most part, is

as close to an objective quest for the factual truth as human kind is likely to experience. Believe it or not.

Great points mso. Having been correctly educated in a field of science and just finished my master's thesis, I know a lot about what you mean. Even as a student we have been taught to read research critically and ask many questions. And having conducted a research study for my thesis I can tell you it's a huge PITA. One of my professors h has conducted numerous numerous studies that show sports drinks (gator ade) work no better than water. They have offered her a million dollars for this research. She refuses to budge. Like she has some sort of vendetta. I give her alot of credit.
Sparrow do you still have the literature from the study? I would be very happy to read it. Or even if you just have the sources.
If you ever hear about a research study second hand like in the news or other media, realize that the people reporting on it probably do not have a background in that field and are not qualified to accurately assess how well the research is performed. Journalists with no science background interpreting research as they see fit is not at all accurate. You are bett er off looking up the study yourself and making your own conclusions, as I often do if I happen to be interested enough

rsuninv, good points. You have to ask where a study is published, and by whom, and with what funding. Much that is

described as science isn't peer reviewed and the so-called researchers are not educated as scientists, or are not working

in their own fields. Some forensic science is actually practiced by technicians who are just using prescribed tests, and not

always correctly. Because real science can be powerful and effective, the mystique of science gets borrowed by lots of folks

who have something to sell or a point to make, but no scientific authority at all. Occasionally, real trained scientists get

caught faking results or inventing data. Being a human endeavor, you get people who go off the tracks. I did know one

Nobel Laureate who started with his prize discovery by getting absolutely contrary results to what he expected, and it was

that result that drove him to figure out what was actually happening. When he figured it out, he was scoffed at by colleagues

for years until, of course, they figured out he was right. This was communication through the walls of cells, something called

signal transduction.

I believe in science as well, however my faith in human nature is not as sound. In my opinion the biggest problem with science is it relies on funding to be completed. Like a well put together feasibility study in business a scientific study can be skewed in various directions to support the desires of the financial backers. If a researcher wants to keep their funding and potentially their job they need to keep their financial backers happy by providing data that supports their interests. One could then make the argument that this is not true science and that only in rare small circumstances where we do not have outside influence can true science be found.

As the age old saying goes, it is more profitable to treat the common cold than it is to cure it.
Or maybe I am just becoming cynical as I get older

Is the science being done in an academic setting with government funding or in a setting with corporate funding and a financial interest in the outcome? Is it then "science" or a branch of marketing.

Don't think for one minute that government does not have financial interest and political interest in a biased outcome.

Without commenting on the thread, I am impressed with the wealth of knowledge and breath of experience this forum group contains.
Thank you all for sharing and participating.

Something relevant to the discussion at hand that some may find of interest:
Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers : Nature News & Comment
Conference proceedings removed from subscription databases after scientist reveals that they were computer-generated.

http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763