Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A friend wonders why this particular scientist is still working …


Here, from Glenn Begley’s notes, in “In cancer science, many ‘discoveries’ don’t hold up” (Reuters, Mar 28, 2012),

….Part way through his project to reproduce promising studies, Begley met for breakfast at a cancer conference with the lead scientist of one of the problematic studies.

“We went through the paper line by line, figure by figure,” said Begley. “I explained that we re-did their experiment 50 times and never got their result. He said they’d done it six times and got this result once, but put it in the paper because it made the best story. It’s very disillusioning.”

Such selective publication is just one reason the scientific literature is peppered with incorrect results.

For one thing, basic science studies are rarely “blinded” the way clinical trials are. That is, researchers know which cell line or mouse got a treatment or had cancer. That can be a problem when data are subject to interpretation, as a researcher who is intellectually invested in a theory is more likely to interpret ambiguous evidence in its favor….”

This also seems like a problem, to our correspondent ….

“….Some authors required the Amgen scientists sign a confidentiality agreement barring them from disclosing data at odds with the original findings. “The world will never know” which 47 studies — many of them highly cited — are apparently wrong, Begley said….”

Readers, please, if you never take anything else away from Uncommon Descent, learn this: A world where Darwinism is unquestioned can be a dangerous place for human beings.

Generally, Denyse O'Leary, Toronto. Not exclusively, but usually. News
When a story is posted by "news", who is the actual author? JoeCoder

Leave a Reply