Another Fraudulent Scientific Paper
This time, in the Lancet. It would seem that the current methods of peer review definitely need reviewing.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 1:57 PM
4 Comments
Secondhand Smoke: Your 24/7 Seminar on Bioethics and the Importance of Being Human
This Blog considers assisted suicide/euthanasia, bioethics, human cloning, biotechnology, radical environmentalism, and the dangers of animal rights/liberation. My views expressed here, as in my books and other writings, reflect my understanding that the philosophy of human exceptionalism is the bedrock of universal human rights. Or, to put it another way: human life matters. (The opinions expressed here are my own and not necessarily those of any organization with which I am affiliated.)
Thursday, January 19, 2006
About Me
- Name: Wesley J. Smith
- Location: Castro Valley, CA, United States
I am a Senior Fellow in Human Rights and Bioethics at the Discovery Institute and the author of 12 books, including A Rat Is A Pig Is A Dog Is A Boy, which is relevant to the issues considered by this blog.
Previous Posts
- Comments about Gonzales v. Oregon from Dr. Eric Ch...
- Another Case of Bad Reportage
- It's Not Over 'Till It's Over
- More Bad News From Korea: This Time About Umb. Cor...
- The First Calls Are Heard for Robert Klein's Head
- Gonzales v. Oregon: Much Less Than Meets the Eye
- The Constitutional Right to Clone
- Gonzales v. Oregon a Very Narrow Ruling
- On Mike Gallagher Show Tomorrow
- U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Oregon
Subscribe to
Comments [Atom]
4 Comments:
I am not blaming peer review. I am saying that I think peer review needs to be reviewed to see whether it can be strengthened and improved. Why is that a problem? Without a reliable peer review system, where will we be?
The same should apply to Institutional oversight.
How many papers published last year -- 10,000? 100,000?
How many had problems with manipulated results, or other issues that might qualify as fraud?
Compare that with the peer-review system for theology papers -- there are not even standards to prevent ethical problems.
The current system provides better than 99.9% "okay" papers. Strengthening peer review is a good idea. Such strengthening would be better recommended by someone who doesn't think such an efficient system broken and seriously in need of repair.
Why are you so threatened by investigating whether the peer review system needs reform? A scientist would want the system to be as solid as possible, it seems to me. I know I do.
@Ed Darrel.. I truly doubt that 99.9% of the studies that come out are ok. Chances are that the amount of "wrong" papers are much more.
But, even assuming that only 0.01% of all papers published in a given year are indeed result of some sort of fraud, that might affect the health of a LOT of people.
It is disgusting to think that the doctor that takes care of you or that accepted guidelines or research studies that might affect your treatment as a patient lack accuracy or are simply a flat out lie not because of innocent wrong doing but because someone wants to profit or is sponsored by certain pharmaceutical company.
Both institutions behind those studies and peers should be very careful and critic. You cannot just throw impressive numbers and statistics in the air with no support whatsoever and go published.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home