The scientific bias

[El Greco]

I've been going through some of the late Mel Siff's writings and found a letter of his to which I hadn't payed much attention when I first read it.

I know that usual woo-woos cling on such topics in order to disprove the scientific methods, but I'm getting tired of debating with woo-woos and explaining the self-explainable to them. I find it much more interesting to deal with the shortcomings of the scientific publishings and even question the universality of the authoritative archives of Pubmed/Medline.

What follows are excerpts from a Mel Siff's letter to some guy with whom he was debating on a biomechanics topic.

Let me know what you think.

My comments on bias in science are by no means unique and have been uttered in various forms by scientists for eons. So, in order to remove the likelihood of any further dissatisfaction with what he may emotively think of me, I have appended at the end of this letter a small and very incomplete list of peer-reviewed articles on scientific bias, relying only on PubMed to show that, even if I am expunged from the discussion and even this planet, there are more than enough scientists who have also recognised the same prob lem. The renowned "Sokal hoax" (see reference below) was aimed directly at disclosing how bias can influence the acceptance of certain ideas.

......................

SOME REFERENCES ON SCIENTIFIC BIAS

J M Stern & R J Simes Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects BMJ 13 Sept 1997;
315:640-645,

This study confirms the evidence of publication bias found in other studies and identifies delay in publication as an additional important factor. The study results support the need for prospective registration of trials to avoid publication bias and also support restricting the selection of trials to those started before a common date in undertaking systematic reviews.

-------------------

Moher D. Publication bias. Lancet. 1993 Oct 30; 342(8879):1116

Boissel JP, Haugh MC The iceberg phenomenon and publication bias: the editors' fault? Clin Trials Metaanal. 1993 Nov;28(6):309-15

Reynolds T Eliminating publication bias: the effect of negative trial resul ts. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000 May 3; 92(9): 682.

de Melker HE, Rosendaal FR, Vandenbroucke JP The importance of publication bias in medical-scientific literature Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1993 Oct 16;137(42):2126-30. Review. Dutch

Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet. 1991 Apr 13; 337(8746):867-72

Olson CM. Publication bias. Acad Emerg Med. 1994 May-Jun;1(3):207-9

Unalp Arida A. Time lag bias in publishing clinical trials JAMA. 1998 Jun 24; 279(24):1952

Clarke M, Stewart L. Time lag bias in publishing clinical trials JAMA. 1998 Jun 24; 279(24):1952

Werko L. Can we trust the science and its megaphones? Lakartidningen. 1996 Nov 13; 93(46): 4134. Swedish.

Chalmers I Publication bias Lancet. 1993 Oct 30;342(8879):1116.

Bouvenot G, Vray M. Clinical trials: find the bias! Rev Rhum Ed Fr. 1993 Jun; 60(6):412-5. French

Sutton AJ, Duval SJ, Tweedie RL, Abrams KR, Jones DR. Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses. BMJ. 2000 Jun 10;320(7249):1574-7

There are numerous other papers on this topic, but this short list should suffice to stress that others besides myself, despite any deficiencies or oversights on my part, have expressed concern about bias in science and "the
scientific method."

 

[Vitnir]

Publication bias might be a problem to some extent but I don't personally think we should blow it out of proportions. Exploratory studies without positive results can be published, you just need to write about the results from a different angle. You have to be able to show the editor and the reviewer that there is something new in your article that isn't known before. You might not get it published in Lancet but its still a publication.

And no, just because its in Pubmed its not a certificate of truth.

 

[Dr. Imago]

(edit: nevermind... I was going to say something snippy, but... just nevermind)