1. How Do We KnowWhat We Know?UTPABioethics: Creating and Challenging Knowledge in Health Edinburg, Texas, April 2013Ivan Oransky, MD Executive Editor, Reuters HealthCo-Founder, Retraction Watch@ivanoransky
2. Retractions on the Rise -The Wall Street Journal
3. How Often Are Studies Wrong?
4. Winner Takes All IncentivesScientific American, August 2012
5. Winner Takes All IncentivesThe winner-take-all aspect of the priority rulehas its drawbacks, however. It can encouragesecrecy, sloppy practices, dishonesty and anexcessive emphasis on surrogate measures ofscientific quality, such as publication in high-impact journals. -- Fang and Casadevall, Scientific American
20. How Often Are Medical Studies Wrong? Ioannidis JPA. PLoS Med 2005; 2(8): e124
21. How Often Are Medical Studies Wrong?
22. Does The Literature Reflect Reality?
23. Does The Literature Reflect Reality?Publish a trial that will bring US$100,000of profit or meet the end-of-year budgetby firing an editor. -- Former BMJ editor Richard Smith
24. Positive Publication Bias
25. Positive Publication BiasThe overall frequency of positive supportshas grown by over 22% between 1990 and2007, with significant differences betweendisciplines and countries.the strongest increase in positive resultswas observed in disciplineslike ClinicalMedicine, Pharmacology & Toxicology,Molecular Biology Fanelli, Scientometrics 2012.
26. Publish All Data?
27. Publish All Data?www.AllTrials.net
28. FDA: Black-or-White Approval
29. FDA: Black-or-White Approvalabandon the current black-or-white approvalprocess in favor of an incremental, conditional one.In such a process, drugs could be provisionallyapproved after promising early-stage data, with theFDA retaining the option to revoke that approvallater on, should unexpected data come to light.A conditional approval approach would grantlimited marketing authorization to new drugs aftersuccessful Phase II trials.http://www.manhattan-institute.org/
30. Confirmation BiasesFacts do not accumulate on the blank slates ofresearchers minds and data simply do not speak forthemselves. Good science inevitably embodies atension between the empiricism of concrete dataand the rationalism of deeply held convictions.awareness of the systematic errors that can occurin evaluative processes may facilitate the selfregulating forces of science and help producereliable knowledge sooner rather than later. -- Kaptchuk, BMJ, 2003;326:14535
31. Believers vs. Snails-- Kaptchuk, BMJ, 2003;326:14535
32. Contact/Acknowledgementsivanemail@example.com http://retractionwatch.com @ivanoranskyThanks to Nancy Lapid, Reuters Health