Advertisement

Bad Science: Cause and Consequence

Published:February 10, 2016DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xphs.2016.01.002

      Abstract

      Scientific progress is dependent on accumulation of quality data with appropriate data analysis. Unfortunately, there are a troubling number of accounts describing an inability to replicate published work. Some explanations are lack of access to proprietary reagents and equipment, or lack of expertise and know how. However, it is clear that there are many publications that are fatally flawed, and it is difficult to ascertain which ones they are, but there are clues. Many articles are improperly controlled, resulting in false-positive or -negative results. Reagents and procedures are used without verifying their specificity. There is also confirmation bias, a tendency to seek and find conclusions that we like, which is exacerbated by faithful acceptance by readers of the publication record without assessment of merit. These and other issues have slowed progress, resulted in waste of scarce funds, and even put patients at risk when clinical decisions are made according to flawed data. Solving these and related problems requires recognition of the problem and better training. We also need to take personal responsibility for not only our own work, but also for the accuracy of information in the scientific domain.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
      APhA Member Login
      APhA Members, full access to the journal is a member benefit. Use your society credentials to access all journal content and features.
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Purchase one-time access:

      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Scott S.
        • Kranz J.E.
        • Cole J.
        • et al.
        Design, power, and interpretation of studies in the standard murine model of ALS.
        Amyotroph Lateral Scler. 2008; 9: 4-15
        • Prinz F.
        • Schlange T.
        • Asadullah K.
        Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets?.
        Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011; 10: 712
        • Begley C.G.
        • Ellis L.M.
        Raise standards for preclinical cancer research.
        Nature. 2012; 483: 531-533
        • Steward O.
        • Popovich P.G.
        • Dietrich W.D.
        • Kleitman N.
        Replication and reproducibility in spinal cord injury research.
        Exp Neurol. 2012; 233: 597-605
        • Lazic S.E.
        • Essioux L.
        Improving basic and translational science by accounting for litter-to-litter variation in animal models.
        BMC Neurosci. 2013; 14: 37
        • Mobley A.
        • Linder S.K.
        • Braeuer R.
        • Ellis L.M.
        • Zwelling L.
        A survey on data reproducibility in cancer research provides insights into our limited ability to translate findings from the laboratory to the clinic.
        PLoS One. 2013; 8: e63221
        • Open Science Collaboration
        PSYCHOLOGY. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science.
        Science. 2015; 349: aac4716
        • Wakefield A.J.
        • Murch S.H.
        • Anthony A.
        • et al.
        Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children.
        Lancet. 1998; 351: 637-641
        • Fleischmann M.
        • Pons S.
        Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium.
        J Electroanal Chem. 1989; 261: 301-308
        • van der Worp H.B.
        • de Haan P.
        • Morrema E.
        • Kalkman C.J.
        Methodological quality of animal studies on neuroprotection in focal cerebral ischaemia.
        J Neurol. 2005; 252: 1108-1114
        • Bara M.
        • Joffe A.R.
        The methodological quality of animal research in critical care: the public face of science.
        Ann Intensive Care. 2014; 4: 26
        • Berglund L.
        • Bjorling E.
        • Oksvold P.
        • et al.
        A genecentric Human Protein Atlas for expression profiles based on antibodies.
        Mol Cell Proteomics. 2008; 7: 2019-2027
        • Nickerson
        Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises.
        Rev Gen Psychol. 1998; 2: 175-220
        • Ioannidis J.P.
        Why most published research findings are false.
        PLoS Med. 2005; 2: e124
        • Rosenthal R.
        The “File Drawer Problem” and tolerance for null results.
        Psychol Bull. 1979; 96: 638-641
        • Tsilidis K.K.
        • Panagiotou O.A.
        • Sena E.S.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of excess significance bias in animal studies of neurological diseases.
        PLoS Biol. 2013; 11: e1001609
        • Henke M.
        • Laszig R.
        • Rube C.
        • et al.
        Erythropoietin to treat head and neck cancer patients with anaemia undergoing radiotherapy: randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
        Lancet. 2003; 362: 1255-1260
        • Henke M.
        • Mattern D.
        • Pepe M.
        • et al.
        Do erythropoietin receptors on cancer cells explain unexpected clinical findings?.
        J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24: 4708-4713
        • Elliott S.
        • Sinclair A.M.
        The effect of erythropoietin on normal and neoplastic cells.
        Biologics. 2012; 6: 163-189
        • Hassouna I.
        • Sperling S.
        • Kim E.
        • et al.
        Erythropoietin augments survival of glioma cells after radiation and temozolomide.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008; 72: 927-934
        • Elliott S.
        • Busse L.
        • Bass M.B.
        • et al.
        Anti-Epo receptor antibodies do not predict Epo receptor expression.
        Blood. 2006; 107: 1892-1895
        • Laugsch M.
        • Metzen E.
        • Svensson T.
        • Depping R.
        • Jelkmann W.
        Lack of functional erythropoietin receptors of cancer cell lines.
        Int J Cancer. 2008; 122: 1005-1011
        • Elliott S.
        • Swift S.
        • Busse L.
        • et al.
        Epo receptors are not detectable in primary human tumor tissue samples.
        PLoS One. 2013; 8: e68083
        • Kirkeby A.
        • van B.J.
        • Nielsen J.
        • Leist M.
        • Helboe L.
        Functional and immunochemical characterisation of different antibodies against the erythropoietin receptor.
        J Neurosci Methods. 2007; 164: 50-58
        • Miller C.P.
        • lowe K.A.
        • Valliant-Saunders K.
        • et al.
        Evaluating erythropoietin-associated tumor progression using archival tissues from a phase III clinical trial.
        Stem Cells. 2009; 27: 2353-2361
        • Sturiale A.
        • Campo S.
        • Crasci E.
        • et al.
        Erythropoietin and its lost receptor.
        Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2007; 22: 1484-1485
        • Della Ragione F.
        • Cucciolla V.
        • Borriello A.
        • Oliva A.
        • Perrotta S.
        Erythropoietin receptors on cancer cells: a still open question.
        J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25: 1812-1813
        • Fairchild B.D.
        • Conrad K.P.
        Expression of the erythropoietin receptor by trophoblast cells in the human placenta.
        Biol Reprod. 1999; 60: 861-870
        • Elliott S.
        • Busse L.
        • McCaffery I.
        • et al.
        Identification of a sensitive anti-erythropoietin receptor monoclonal antibody allows detection of low levels of EpoR in cells.
        J Immunol Methods. 2010; 352: 126-139
        • Swift S.
        • Elliott S.
        • Sinclair A.
        • Begley C.G.
        Erythropoietin receptor in ovarian cancer cells.
        Mol Cancer Ther. 2010; 9: 1070-1071
        • Collins F.S.
        • Tabak L.A.
        Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility.
        Nature. 2014; 505: 612-613
        • Begley C.G.
        • Ioannidis J.P.
        Reproducibility in science: improving the standard for basic and preclinical research.
        Circ Res. 2015; 116: 116-126