A few years ago scientists at Amgen, an American drug company, tried to replicate 53 studies that they considered landmarks in the basic science of cancer, often co-operating closely with the original researchers to ensure that their experimental technique matched the one used first time round. According to a piece they wrote last year in Nature, a leading scientific journal, they were able to reproduce the original results in just six. [emphasis mine]
No wonder cancer treatments have such a low recovery rates.
When an official at America’s National Institutes of Health (NIH) reckons, despairingly, that researchers would find it hard to reproduce at least three-quarters of all published biomedical findings, the public part of the process seems to have failed.
Academic scientists ... hold fast to the idea that these errors get corrected over time as other scientists try to take the work further. Evidence that many more dodgy results are published than are subsequently corrected or withdrawn calls that much-vaunted capacity for self-correction into question.
Good reply Sentient. No illusions, but no more disillusionment than necessary. I usually think of the negative first, and need to hear more positives like you gave.
I would agree with Spud
Good vs. bad research. How is a layperson to know the difference? We read and listen to all sides and come away confused and frustrated. I've read just about every study that comes up on Google, and am more confused.
This report was paid for by Monsanto:
GE Séralini, D Cellier, JS De Vendomois, ...
A 90-day rat-feeding study.
“Longer experiments are essential in order to indicate the real nature and extent of the possible pathology/ with the present data it cannot be concluded that GM corn MON863 is a safe product.
This is a review of the published literature:
Toxicity Studies of Genetically Modified Plants: A Review of the Published Literature
José L. Domingoa Laboratory of Toxicology and Environmental Health, School of Medicine , “Rovira I Virgili” University , San Lorenzo, 21, 43201, Reus, Spain
“In this paper, the scientific information concerning the potential toxicity of GM/transgenic plants using the Medline database is reviewed. Studies about the safety of the potential use of potatoes, corn, soybeans, rice, cucumber, tomatoes, sweet pepper, peas, and canola plants for food and feed were included. The number of references was surprisingly limited. Moreover, most published studies were not performed by the biotechnology companies that produce these products. This review can be concluded raising the following question: where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe?