18 ms·

Was this article written by Dr. Harkonen's publicist or something? The case seems pretty clear: he knowingly misrepresented the results of a drug trial for the

Was this article written by Dr. Harkonen's publicist or something? The case seems pretty clear: he knowingly misrepresented the results of a drug trial for the financial benefit of his firm and, by association, himself. He did this at the possible expense of critically to terminally ill patients, and at the further expense of the scientific and medical integrity of his research. And he received 6 months of house arrest at his cushy, 3-story San Francisco home as punishment. Forgive me if I don't strain myself reaching for my violin. I sincerely hope this piece is not representative of the journalistic integrity of the Post under its new ownership. The article's blatant slant, its casual blending of editorial opinion and facts-based reporting, and its weirdly patronizing tone (ex: "the so-called 'p-value'") do no justice to the reputation of the newspaper. The author opens with a rather silly rhetorical question, one with an obvious answer: "Is it a crime for a medical researcher to hype his results? To put a heavy spin on the findings when there are millions of dollars, and possibly lives, at stake?" Yes. Yes, it is. Especially when there are millions of dollars, and possibly lives, at stake. You don't get to cut corners in the scientific method because you think you're on to something.

nkurz 13y ago
I got the opposite impression. In fact, I think this may be the best medical statistics article I've ever seen in the popular press: But there was a problem. This mild-to-moderate subgroup wasn’t one the researchers said they would analyze when they set up the study. Subdividing patients after the fact and looking for statistically significant results is a controversial practice. In its most extreme form, it’s scorned as “data dredging.” The term suggests that if you drag a net through a bunch of numbers enough times, you’ll come up with something significant sooner or later." I don't presume it has anything to do with Bezos, but if it does, I hope stays on a buying spree! I was inspired to find out more about the author: http://www.washingtonpost.com/david-brown/2011/02/28/AB2Y0sM_page.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/david-brown/2011/02/28/AB2Y0sM... It turns out he's a part-time journalist and part-time licensed physician: "He works four days a week at the Post and two-thirds of a day at a general internal medicine clinic in Baltimore supervising third-year medical students." I also didn't find it biased toward Harkonen at all. Consider the closing: InterMune did run another trial. It was big — 826 patients at 81 hospitals — in order to maximize the chance of getting clear-cut results. It enrolled only people with mild to moderate lung damage, the subgroup whose success was touted in the press release. And it failed. A little more than a year into the study, more people on the drug had died (15 percent) than people on placebo (13 percent). That was the death knell for the drug. It even links to the actual study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19570573?dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19570573?dopt=Abstract I don't know if I've ever seen a major newspaper link directly to a primary scientific paper as a source. I encourage you to read it again and see if your view changes. I've read it twice now and think it is an absolutely stellar piece of science writing, worthy of a Best Science Writing compilation.
- jonnathanson 13y ago
  I'll give it another read in light of what you're saying, but in the meantime, to clarify one line: "I don't presume it has anything to do with Bezos, but if it does, I hope stays on a buying spree!" I don't presume it has anything to do with Bezos, either. I would assume (?) he hasn't really taken the reins yet, at any rate. I've since edited that statement for clarity. Not trying to blame him for anything, or attribute this to him in any way. Rather, I am hopeful that the quality improves under him.
- paulftw 13y ago
  Tone of the article was certainly skewed in Harkonen's favor, so I stopped mid-second page and turned to HN comments. It's great that the journalist found the debunking study and mentioned it. But does the order matter? He goes on and on about how "a sizable proportion of [scientists] might be in jail today". Most readers would drop half way through, as I did. What will they learn? Oh, there was evidence that drug can be lifesaving but technicality killed the white knight. The problems with after-the-fact analyses are well known. I reckon there should be a strict mathematical proof why those are wrong. We just got yet another example of that. How else can you keep charlatans out if not by being rough on those who break the rules? Especially when breaking the rules possibly has lethal consequences for less sophisticated yet desperate consumers. I'm not saying Harkonen is a charlatan, but he certainly jumped the gun. For whatever reason, but he did.
- freshhawk 13y ago
  Subdividing patients after the fact and looking for statistically significant results is a controversial practice If by controversial they meant "is considered outright fraud" ... then yes, it is controversial. This is one of the parts that made me see an unacceptable level of bias. There are a lot of parts that are similar to this, it might do a better than average job of explaining p-values and talking about the realities of experimental design but the tone in every case is dismissive in the "bunch of eggheads worrying about little details" kind of way. This is so biased I assume there is an agenda here rather than just bad journalism, the other explanation is that the writer is a good writer, researched the unfamiliar terms but didn't understand any of it and is good enough at regurgitating information to make it look like they did understand it. Either way, it's awful science writing even if they did use a lot of science words correctly. I have a higher standard for my hypothetical Best Science Writing awards I guess ... like requiring they get the science right.

nkurz 13y ago

I got the opposite impression. In fact, I think this may be the best medical statistics article I've ever seen in the popular press: But there was a problem. This mild-to-moderate subgroup wasn’t one the researchers said they would analyze when they set up the study. Subdividing patients after the fact and looking for statistically significant results is a controversial practice. In its most extreme form, it’s scorned as “data dredging.” The term suggests that if you drag a net through a bunch of numbers enough times, you’ll come up with something significant sooner or later." I don't presume it has anything to do with Bezos, but if it does, I hope stays on a buying spree! I was inspired to find out more about the author: http://www.washingtonpost.com/david-brown/2011/02/28/AB2Y0sM_page.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/david-brown/2011/02/28/AB2Y0sM... It turns out he's a part-time journalist and part-time licensed physician: "He works four days a week at the Post and two-thirds of a day at a general internal medicine clinic in Baltimore supervising third-year medical students." I also didn't find it biased toward Harkonen at all. Consider the closing: InterMune did run another trial. It was big — 826 patients at 81 hospitals — in order to maximize the chance of getting clear-cut results. It enrolled only people with mild to moderate lung damage, the subgroup whose success was touted in the press release. And it failed. A little more than a year into the study, more people on the drug had died (15 percent) than people on placebo (13 percent). That was the death knell for the drug. It even links to the actual study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19570573?dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19570573?dopt=Abstract I don't know if I've ever seen a major newspaper link directly to a primary scientific paper as a source. I encourage you to read it again and see if your view changes. I've read it twice now and think it is an absolutely stellar piece of science writing, worthy of a Best Science Writing compilation.

jonnathanson 13y ago
I'll give it another read in light of what you're saying, but in the meantime, to clarify one line: "I don't presume it has anything to do with Bezos, but if it does, I hope stays on a buying spree!" I don't presume it has anything to do with Bezos, either. I would assume (?) he hasn't really taken the reins yet, at any rate. I've since edited that statement for clarity. Not trying to blame him for anything, or attribute this to him in any way. Rather, I am hopeful that the quality improves under him.
paulftw 13y ago
Tone of the article was certainly skewed in Harkonen's favor, so I stopped mid-second page and turned to HN comments. It's great that the journalist found the debunking study and mentioned it. But does the order matter? He goes on and on about how "a sizable proportion of [scientists] might be in jail today". Most readers would drop half way through, as I did. What will they learn? Oh, there was evidence that drug can be lifesaving but technicality killed the white knight. The problems with after-the-fact analyses are well known. I reckon there should be a strict mathematical proof why those are wrong. We just got yet another example of that. How else can you keep charlatans out if not by being rough on those who break the rules? Especially when breaking the rules possibly has lethal consequences for less sophisticated yet desperate consumers. I'm not saying Harkonen is a charlatan, but he certainly jumped the gun. For whatever reason, but he did.
freshhawk 13y ago
Subdividing patients after the fact and looking for statistically significant results is a controversial practice If by controversial they meant "is considered outright fraud" ... then yes, it is controversial. This is one of the parts that made me see an unacceptable level of bias. There are a lot of parts that are similar to this, it might do a better than average job of explaining p-values and talking about the realities of experimental design but the tone in every case is dismissive in the "bunch of eggheads worrying about little details" kind of way. This is so biased I assume there is an agenda here rather than just bad journalism, the other explanation is that the writer is a good writer, researched the unfamiliar terms but didn't understand any of it and is good enough at regurgitating information to make it look like they did understand it. Either way, it's awful science writing even if they did use a lot of science words correctly. I have a higher standard for my hypothetical Best Science Writing awards I guess ... like requiring they get the science right.