3 ms·

So can we still call it science, or not? And if not, what do we call it?

by graeme 12y ago

chris_va 12y ago
Well, technically they are replicating the study over 50+ different hospitals until they reach some confidence interval on the safety data. If you get fraud in a small fraction of them, it should not (and if you read the actual testimony, does not) impact the net result.
- static_noise 12y ago
  If you need 50 experiments to actually show that the effect exists, then even a small fraction of fraudulent experiments can heavily skew the result when looking at confidence intervals. Think of selfhealing as a coin toss with 50/50 chance and a medication increasing this chance: a) Medication increases healing chances to 80% -> Only few experiments needed. b) Medication increases healing chances to 55% -> Many experiments needed to prove that the effect exists. c) Medication is not effective but 5% fraud is introduced so that data shows 55% healing chances -> The same as in b) but with only "a little" fraud involoved.
  - kirsebaer 12y ago
    Yes. Many medications are not that effective. The supposed effect seen in clinical trials is very small and could be easily manipulated.
  - logfromblammo 12y ago
    Don't forget the placebo effect. A major flaw I see in most medications studies is that the market prices for the experimental drug or placebo are not included in the study. My hypothesis is that a placebo described as costing $1000 per dose will produce a greater effect than a placebo described as costing $10 per dose, even if the patients are not asked to pay that cost. Could it be that those drugs that barely outperform a gratis placebo are only producing that effect because the act of charging more for them makes them better placebos? If that's the case, the fraud would only be needed to eliminate evidence of harm to get approval for a bogus remedy. All the effectiveness would come from magnified placebo effect.
    - static_noise 12y ago
      Current stdies should account and compensate for the placebo effect (double blind study). I think there was a study which compared different placebos and the more expensive ones showed better effects. So your hypothesis may be right.
gerry_shaw 12y ago
If all the steps are made available in the paper to reproduce the experiment I would consider it science. Just because people don't replicate the study because of other factors like time or money shouldn't take away from the first experiment. Somebody has to be first. That said, is an interesting question.
Intermernet 12y ago
You can call it research. If it's done according to the scientific method, then it can be called scientific research. If not, it's just research.

So can we still call it science, or not? And if not, what do we call it?

by graeme 12y ago

So can we still call it science, or not? And if not, what do we call it?

Well, technically they are replicating the study over 50+ different hospitals until they reach some confidence interval on the safety data. If you get fraud in a small fraction of them, it should not (and if you read the actual testimony, does not) impact the net result.

static_noise 12y ago
If you need 50 experiments to actually show that the effect exists, then even a small fraction of fraudulent experiments can heavily skew the result when looking at confidence intervals. Think of selfhealing as a coin toss with 50/50 chance and a medication increasing this chance: a) Medication increases healing chances to 80% -> Only few experiments needed. b) Medication increases healing chances to 55% -> Many experiments needed to prove that the effect exists. c) Medication is not effective but 5% fraud is introduced so that data shows 55% healing chances -> The same as in b) but with only "a little" fraud involoved.
- kirsebaer 12y ago
  Yes. Many medications are not that effective. The supposed effect seen in clinical trials is very small and could be easily manipulated.
- logfromblammo 12y ago
  Don't forget the placebo effect. A major flaw I see in most medications studies is that the market prices for the experimental drug or placebo are not included in the study. My hypothesis is that a placebo described as costing $1000 per dose will produce a greater effect than a placebo described as costing $10 per dose, even if the patients are not asked to pay that cost. Could it be that those drugs that barely outperform a gratis placebo are only producing that effect because the act of charging more for them makes them better placebos? If that's the case, the fraud would only be needed to eliminate evidence of harm to get approval for a bogus remedy. All the effectiveness would come from magnified placebo effect.
  - static_noise 12y ago
    Current stdies should account and compensate for the placebo effect (double blind study). I think there was a study which compared different placebos and the more expensive ones showed better effects. So your hypothesis may be right.

gerry_shaw 12y ago

If all the steps are made available in the paper to reproduce the experiment I would consider it science. Just because people don't replicate the study because of other factors like time or money shouldn't take away from the first experiment. Somebody has to be first. That said, is an interesting question.

Intermernet 12y ago

You can call it research. If it's done according to the scientific method, then it can be called scientific research. If not, it's just research.