4 ms·

> Don't get me wrong: funding bias is a problem, but it gets overstated. Hardly. It is in fact far worse than you are attempting to imply, and is covered in de

by justsee 12y ago

> Don't get me wrong: funding bias is a problem, but it gets overstated. Hardly. It is in fact far worse than you are attempting to imply, and is covered in detail in Bad Pharma[1] which is well worth reading. A snippet: "Drugs are tested by the people who manufacture them, in poorly designed trials, on hopelessly small numbers of weird, unrepresentative patients, and analysed using techniques which are flawed by design, in such a way that they exaggerate the benefits of treatments." [1] http://www.badscience.net/2012/09/heres-the-intro-to-my-new-book/ http://www.badscience.net/2012/09/heres-the-intro-to-my-new-...

bayesianhorse 12y ago
This is mostly true for drugs where there is almost zero public interest. And even then I don't want to overinterpret "evil intentions" when it just might be a case of honest researchers not doing a perfect job in an imperfect world. When there is public interest, independent studies are conducted.
- justsee 12y ago
  Your comment is terribly misinformed about the reality of drug research. I'd urge you to at least read that opening paragraph I linked to up-thread from the 'Bad Pharma' book. If you have an interest in this area I would imagine you'd want to read the book to fully understand how broken the current system is. It's not all doom-and-gloom though; a movement to try to get back to a scientific approach in drug research is continuing with http://www.alltrials.net/ http://www.alltrials.net/.
  - bayesianhorse 12y ago
    Even knowing the book, I think it is terribly "misinformed" to describe the current drug research/development as something other than a "scientific approach". There is no clear picture of what good scientific research looks like, at least not in the real world, and not if you take the financial picture into account, and the benefit of developing new therapies. The ready assumption of evil intentions can hardly be described as "scientific" either. Pharma companies are taking on development risks which no public health system is willing to stomach.

by justsee 12y ago

bayesianhorse 12y ago

This is mostly true for drugs where there is almost zero public interest. And even then I don't want to overinterpret "evil intentions" when it just might be a case of honest researchers not doing a perfect job in an imperfect world. When there is public interest, independent studies are conducted.

justsee 12y ago
Your comment is terribly misinformed about the reality of drug research. I'd urge you to at least read that opening paragraph I linked to up-thread from the 'Bad Pharma' book. If you have an interest in this area I would imagine you'd want to read the book to fully understand how broken the current system is. It's not all doom-and-gloom though; a movement to try to get back to a scientific approach in drug research is continuing with http://www.alltrials.net/ http://www.alltrials.net/.
- bayesianhorse 12y ago
  Even knowing the book, I think it is terribly "misinformed" to describe the current drug research/development as something other than a "scientific approach". There is no clear picture of what good scientific research looks like, at least not in the real world, and not if you take the financial picture into account, and the benefit of developing new therapies. The ready assumption of evil intentions can hardly be described as "scientific" either. Pharma companies are taking on development risks which no public health system is willing to stomach.