Useful FACT

The Falsification of Medical Studies for Commercial Purpose

Added by viorel on Jun 12, 2009 | Visited by 5650 | Voted by 50 persons

In the science field the most common question, which unfortunately remains unanswered, refers to scientific misbehavior. The truth is that a lot of researchers fabricate their study results and sometimes it is hard to identify lie from truth. The open-access journal PLos ONE features an article written by Daniele Fanelli of the University of Edinburgh who presented the first meta-analysis of polls questioning researchers about their misconducts.







The meta-analysis attempted to reveal the truth about the falsification of information. It was found that changing data or making it up was more frequent than it was previously thought. Most frequent cases of misbehavior were registered by specialists from the medical and pharmacological fields. Medical research is the first in the list of fields were the fabrication, falsification or altering of data is very common. It was proven that false research is rather easy to make up and it was proven by some scandals like the one linked with Hwang Woo-Suk\'s fake stem-cell lines or that of Jon Sudbo, who falsified the results of cancers trials.







What is really surprising is that such fake studies are published in some of the most prestigious scientific journals. With increasing evidence it brings the obvious - that all the fake studies that came into light represent just a tip of the iceberg. This is due to the fact that smaller cases of misconduct take place even more frequently. If to reveal the real numbers, they might spark a wave of controversy.







Because completely different results were obtained after carrying out researches based on indirect data (such as official withdrawal of scientific papers of arbitrary data audits), scientists have asked other researchers directly, with specific polls created and conducted in different countries around the globe and in various disciplines. But the results of these surveys are still inconclusive, because different questions were asked and different methods were used.







In order to make the results of the surveys somewhat comparable, the recent meta-analysis focused of scientists\' actions that really deform scientific knowledge and revealed the occurrence of researchers, who reported of making up or altering data at least once, or who were aware of at least one case of a colleague that showed misconduct behavior. The results of the survey do not include information on plagiarism and other types of malpractice.



The Results







The average result of all surveys, showed that 2 percent of scientists at least once in the career made-up, altered or falsified data with the goal of improving the outcome. It was also revealed that up to 34 percent were involved in other doubtful practices such as \"failing to present data that contradict one\'s own previous research\" and \"dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate.\"







Those surveys that questioned scientists about the behavior of their colleagues showed that 14 percent were aware that one of their colleagues was involved in falsification or changing of data. In addition, the polls showed that up to 72 percent knew at least one person who was previously involved in doubtful research practices.







Such results can suggest two things, whether scientists from the two fields were more honest than others, or they are aware that falsification and altering of data takes place much more often in medicine or pharmacology. However, if the latter is true than it would increase fears that industrial sponsorship plays an important role in distorting scientific proof in order to promote money-making treatments and drugs.