Medical Journals Fight Burying of Inconvenient Research

A dozen leading medical journals have announced that they plan to refuse publication of clinical studies unless those studies were publicly registered ahead of time. Part of the intention is to prevent researchers from privately doing multiple studies and then selectively releasing for publication only those which yield favorable results. There are many other journals which have not signed on to this plan, however, and it remains to be seen what will happen. Personally, I'm surprised it's taken this long; as Karl Popper wrote, "what distinguishes the scientific approach and method from the prescientific approach is the method of attempted falsification."

Comments

Re:Meanwhile

[hung_himself]

as wrong as the idea that NIH-funded research does all (or even much) of the work of drug development

No they just do the basic research that results in the drug leads. The companies then do the expensive but scientifically easy trials and rake in all the money (and now it seems, the credit as well).

And since when is an industry spokesman considered a reliable source of information..?

Re:Meanwhile

[Otter]

No they just do the basic research that results in the drug leads. The companies then do the expensive but scientifically easy trials and rake in all the money (and now it seems, the credit as well).

This nicely illustrates Lowe's point: what you're saying is widely believed, but is absolutely, utterly, entirely, absurdly false. (Except for the non-sequitur at the end about "credit" which I don't understand at all.)

And since when is an industry spokesman considered a reliable source of information..?

First, he's a chemist, not a "spokesman". Second, he (and I) do precisely the work you claim doesn't exist and might be thought to have something to say on the matter. But, if you want to limit your "reliable sources of information" to people who don't know what they're talking about, that's certainly your right.