JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Archives


EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Archives

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Archives


EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Home

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Home

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH  November 2010

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH November 2010

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Too much skepticism/ Too much bad research/Is it like that?

From:

Jeff Harrison <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Jeff Harrison <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 6 Nov 2010 05:39:35 +1300

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (164 lines)

Thank you, Steve.  I've been watching the unfolding discussion with
interest and deciding when to write JUST such a response.  There is a
difference between scepticism and cynicism.  The latter is a lot easier
and usually unhelpful because it doesn't add to the discussion.

Some other observations on the discussion to date.

Too much bad research:
Yes, I believe there is.  This is largely because of the nature of the
'machine' in tertiary education - many have commented on this already.
As a personal summary, I am not a professor.  I will not become a
professor until I've published a lot more than I have.  I will not
publish more until I have grant income to sustain a team to undertake a
meaningful research programme that will generate useful findings.  I
won't generate grant income until I research/publish more.  I won't
research/publish more until I teach less.  I won't teach less until I
have grant income to buy out my teaching time - and even then there is
actually no guarantee based on past experience

As has been said by Rakesh, research is about learning.  Not every
research project should be published, some provide internal learning
telling us how to get to the answer rather than the answer itself.
Whilst papers describing and critiquing methods are helpful my pet hate
is finding the perfect abstract and pulling the paper to find it is
describing how the study will be done not whether the method works or
what the results are.  PLEASE can journals stop publishing this CV
packing bull.....

In direct contrast to this view of too many papers, by-and-large I
believe research involving patients or volunteers (possibly include
animal studies too here depending on your view of ethical approaches to
using animals in research) should be published.  If it isn't designed to
generate an answer you shouldn't be doing it -and BTW your Ethics
Committee or IRB should have withheld permission until it was.  Once
completed you have a duty to publish BUT you also have a duty to publish
what WAS found not what you WISHED you'd found.  We can all be guilty of
wanting to 'sex up' the results - we need to resist it and behave like
scientists.

Publication:
There are too many journals publishing too much 'quick and dirty'
research.  Compounding the problem there are so many journals that
peer-review is compromised; there simply are not enough good reviewers
to go around.  I don't know whether I'm a good reviewer or not but I do
know it takes me around half a day, sometimes more, to conduct a
standard manuscript review.  I try to be critical of the research, not
of the researchers.  My experience as an author is very varied.  My
heart sinks when I get a 20-point review back from a journal but at
least I know the reviewer has read my article, thought about it and has
raised some points for consideration.  When I get one back with two
lines I feel initially pleased but there is always a nagging doubt
later.

On a note re: publication.  When are we all, by which I mean
researchers, editors and reviewers, going to start publishing
manuscripts that show no difference or negative results?  They are still
a rarity and it isn't always the drug companies suppressing them, as
seems the prevailing view amongst the delightfully naive.

Conflict of interest:
I am an academic. I've received public research grants. I have also
received contribution from "Big Pharma" and from device manufacturers
through no-cost supply for trials.   Am I evil?  I don't think so.  I
don't feel in the slightest bit compromised because in the first two
situations the companies had no influence on the design of the study and
- in fairness to them - sought no influence on or even forewarning of
the results prior to publications.  They got a copy of the paper on the
day the journal embargo expired.

I have likewise been paid an honorarium to speak at meetings sponsored
by Big Pharma.  Am I evil?  I don't think so.  I was given some slides
to review which I politely declined to accept and wrote my own based on
my reading of the data.  I said some things the company probably
approved of and some things they almost certainly didn't want to be
highlighted. They didn't complain they just didn't invite me back or
send me a Christmas card.  I'm assuming they acknowledged that was the
risk they were taking by picking an independent speaker and found
someone else.  Presumably that person provided a more palatable version.
I'm not annoyed, that is their game and the other person's
conscience....and, by-the-way, my view may have been wrong.
 
The answer: 
Until a miracle occurs and the problem is solved by divine intervention
I will continue to behave in a way that I believe is appropriate.  This
is, of course, influenced by morals and social norms so it is reasonable
to expect that most other moral researchers will be doing the same.  I
will continue to teach my students to think about what they are doing
and why - both in research and, more importantly to me, in practice.  To
me that is actually what being an academic is all about - thinking more.

Happy Guy Fawkes to you all.

Jeff



-----Original Message-----
From: Evidence based health (EBH)
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steve Simon,
P.Mean Consulting
Sent: Friday, 5 November 2010 11:35 a.m.
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Too much skepticism is just as bad as too little skepticism

The list has been filled with comments like this one:

> Since one's main interest is to generate income, the primary objective
> of the research is to perpetuate itself, i.e. to ensure more grants.
> Patient outcomes and/or better allocation of limited public resources
> are irrelevant, let alone maximizing the health of populations.

I can't disagree more. In my book, I write about the value of things 
like randomization, intention to treat analysis, blinding, etc. and then

I turn around and say that randomization is overrated, intention to 
treat is overrated, blinding is overrated, etc. The reason for this 
turnaround is that there is too much black and white mentality in the 
EBM community--if a study is randomized, it is good, and if it is not, 
the study is bad. Everything needs to be placed in context. A well 
conducted observational study is far better than a shoddy randomized
study.

The same is true with conflicts of interest. Conflict of interest is 
overrated by many in the EBM community. It has to factored in, but you 
can't disqualify a study just because there is a conflict of interest. 
That's just as bad as disqualifying a study because it was not blinded.

A well conducted study is persuasive even if the authors have a 
financial conflict of interest. The key is transparency of the methods 
and objectivity in the approach. A financial conflict is a fatal flaw in

a subjective overview of the research, but it is not a fatal flaw in a 
systematic overview. The systematic overview, with an open protocol and 
objective ways to extract and combine the information from multiple 
studies, is certainly defensible, even with a financial conflict of 
interest.

Furthermore, to claim that the ONLY goal of academic researchers is to 
ensure more grants is just not true. I know these people. I work with 
them on a daily basis. They are concerned about getting grants, but that

is NOT to the exclusion of caring about their patients. In my 
experience, what motivates medical researchers most is that they see a 
problem in how health care is delivered and they want to fix it. Getting

the grants is a means to an end, and not the end itself.

The other problem with all of this discussion is a lack of appreciation 
for the varying ranges of severity associated with conflicts. Everyone 
has pressures that can influence how they conduct their research, but 
some influences are minor and easy to resist, and others are major and 
far more difficult to resist. Accepting a free trip from a drug company 
makes you more conflicted than accepting a free meal. And non-financial 
conflicts, while they can't be ignored, are less of a concern than major

financial conflicts of interest.

I believe that a skeptical attitude is mostly helpful in EBM, but too 
much skepticism can be very harmful.
-- 
Steve Simon, Standard Disclaimer
Sign up for The Monthly Mean, the newsletter that
dares to call itself "average" at www.pmean.com/news

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager