Poor, Poor Scientists

As innovation comes directly from the scientists, Scientists are put under massive amounts of pressure for publishing. This pressure to publish has directly resulted in the ever-growing publication rates that seeminlgy has no end. With this massive influx of studies, there is a large portion of studies that are partial truths due to many different biases that scientists are forced to work through, intentional or not. The reason why there is so much potential for bias is due to the fractured system that scientific studies are based off.

Due to the emphasis of quantity over quality, for both payments and value, scientists are morelenient to not publish the full potential of what studies could have achieved. As scientists are essentiallyforced to focus on the number of intriguing thesis they make instead of quality and accurate studies,more and more faulty studies start to accumulate. To combat this, replication tests are very valuable asthey attempt to retest the study exactly in order to test the study’s validity. These tests are essentially afail-safe, where another scientific group that is independent to the original does everything that thestudy did to see if it produces similar results. Erick Turner from the FDA spoke about the replication testsheld in 2008. The FDA retested 74 studies that proved the effectiveness of numerous FDA-registeredantidepressants. From the replication tests, they found that 23 of them did not even have evidence of publication, which left 51 studies to examine. It was reported that 48 of those 51 studies that were leftoriginally showed positive results, yet when the FDA concluded the replication studies they found thatonly 38 studies out of the original 74 had positive results, thus completely disproving studies that were now found to be selling ineffective antidepressants.

If such a test is so valuable to validate incorrect tests, then there should not be so many tests thatpeople can view where the study essentially publishes false claims. Sadly, these faulty studies are unlikely to be corrected as there is no incentive within the scientific community to replicate the tests. Even though the FDA made replication tests, the company is not a good representation of the entirety of the community as the FDA is a government funded organization whose primary focus is to regulate issues such as the biased studies. This is known as the replication crisis.

As noted before, scientists’ payment are incentivized to push the claims of whatever will help their career. If the scientists are able to sustain themselves using replication test, researchers would have used these replication tests. However, there is no monetary value for replication tests so scientists avoid the very test that helps counteract faulty claims. As scientists are only human and will tend to prioritize their own living for the expense of integrity, they are forced to push plentiful theses for money and do not focus on retesting as there is no monetary value for validating what someone has already stated. This phenomenon essentially eliminates the fail-safe that is made to get rid of the faulty studies, which means that the number of studies that are essentially inaccurate are going to steadily increase with little resistance.

This phenomenon is very detrimental for the future of science. In the article, “Pressure to ‘Publish or

Perish’ May Discourage Innovative Research, UCLA Study Suggests,” author Phil Hampton discusses a study lead by Jacob Foster that measures the risks and innovation studies take and the implications that it makes. Foster found in biomedicine and chemistry that more than sixty percent of the studies that were analyzed showed no new connections. This essentially means that innovation is slowly grinding to a halt due to the flawed system. As scientists are fixated with their publications to make a steady income, they must push whatever will allow the safest income. Even though going with the more innovative idea may result in a breakthrough that will net massive amounts of revenue from publication, there is an even greater chance that the study will not result in a positive study, which would not be beneficial to the scientist. This risk versus reward scenario causes scientists to then make a choice on what they value more. There, the non-innovative route becomes the favored choice as scientist do not have a safety net that can warrant the risk. Thus, innovation is slowly starting to slow down. This is one of the worst outcomes as only innovation causes new leaps and bounds to be made from science. If innovation is starting to slow down, science as a whole slows down as well.

Since all of these issues can be solved by money, funding from organizations seem to be one of the best solutions. Money is being given to the researchers which allows the researchers to remove the restraint of income so better tests are made. However, this harmonious relationship becomes detrimental as both parties benefit too much. A claim from a scientific study is very valuable for a business. The faith people have with how rigid scientific studies are causes people to believe essentially anything a scientific study proves. As a result, companies are willing to invest a lot of money for scientific studies that positively help whatever the company is pushing. This investment would ultimately result in more money for the future. This interest itself causes a cycle that makes this issue worse. A business wants to be able to push their values to gain more money or popularity, so the businesses are more willing to pay money to inevitably reap the benefits. As the business itself pays money for the studies that prove their values, scientists are more enticed to make a study that proves the business’s value for a better living, giving more and more incentive to produce more or alter claims that prove the value.

This cycle results in countless biased articles that unjustifiably prove the claim of the business that affect the public. Companies such as pharmaceuticals and sport drink companies are repeatedly found in the obvious malpractice. For example, in the study “Association of Funding And Conclusions in Randomized Drug Trials,” Bodil ALs-Nielsen randomly selected 370 random drug trials to see if there was an effect on the result of the test being funded by a non-profit organization or a for profit organization. With only 16% of the studies recommending the drugs when it was funded by a non-profit organization and 51% of the studies when funded by a for-profit organization, it is painfully obvious to see the effect that funding sources has.

Works Cited:

Turner, Erick H. “Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent Efficacy — NEJM.” New England Journal of Medicine. N.p., 17 Jan. 2008. Web. 28 Nov. 2016.

Hampton, Phil. “Pressure to ‘publish or Perish’ May Discourage Innovative Research, UCLA Study Suggests.” UCLA Newsroom. N.p., 08 Oct. 2015. Web. 018 Nov. 2016

Nielsen, MD Bodil. “Association of Funding and Conclusions in Randomized Drug Trials.”Association of Funding and Conclusions in Randomized Drug Trials. The JAMA Network, 20 Aug. 2003. Web. 01 Dec. 2016.