Bad science yet again!

It turns out that I read several journals published by Elsevier (now that I think of it, they're even publishing a paper of mine in International Studies in the Philosophy of Science). But they were recently outed about publishing several "fake journals". Unbelievable!

Issues in the Science World

I think every society including science has corruption. There are always going to be dishonest, un-loyal, back-stabbing, greedy people within any group of people. I think a lot of groups give opportunities for these behaviors, such as we talked in class about peer editing in the science world. I totally agree with whoever brought up using anonymous editors. The science world seems to be more corrupted by "greed" then anything else. They want the fame but don't want to do the actual work for it. To them they deserve to be famous for coming up with crap. Which is really to bad because this causes people who are learning such as associate professors who are required to produce papers be mixed up with people who are just out for fame instead of finding new discoveries in science. I dont think that all crap work is un-ethical. Everyone makes mistakes which enables them and others to learn and not make that same mistake. There are also some papers that are written that are boring or dont attract the attention of some audiences, this doesnt make them boring. Some ones garbage is another person's treasure. Overall though I dont think there is any quick fix to the science world. I think there are alot of unethical people in this world and to fix that goes way way beyond the world of science.

Response to Research Ethics Chapter

I found the Research Ethics reading to very interesting. Being a business student, I found particular interest in the discussion of the big business in research ethics. In this section of the chapter, Webster discusses how biotechnology companies have attracted financial investment from private sector companies that have attracted many of the stock markets throughout the world. This brings up a ethical dilemma for the scientists involved in these companies as well as the executives that run the companies.

On page 211 of the Research ethics chapter, Webster discusses how their is a close relationship between the culture of research and the culture of money within these organizations. This raises the ethical dilemma of when announcements about scientific research and findings are made public and released to money markets. One serious dilemma here is are the executives in the biotechnology companies pushing their scientists to make big breakthroughs with their technology in order for the companies stock to increase? Also, are these companies giving bonuses and other financial incentives for their scientists to make these breakthroughs? This brings up the other dilemma of 'are these significant breakthroughs researched properly and truly accurate'?

Personally, I feel that their is a major conflict of interest present in these biotechnology companies. The financial gains that are associated with these companies based on breakthroughs made by scientists are significant. Since they are private sector companies, it is more difficult it is difficult to regulate the announcements of major breakthroughs in their research, so I feel that it is a very difficult issue to deal with. If these scientists do act unethically and give false information of their research, their could be very significant financial implications for the company, as well as the pure unethical nature of proclaiming a breakthrough in a certain science that could ultimately change peoples lives.

My response to today's class

Today’s discussion about peer review and the way science works in general got me thinking. Science can be ruthless and full of bad morals that most people (outside of politics and business) would not even think of considering.

When he was talking about getting grants, I was immediately reminded of something that happened over the summer. My lab group and another lab group in the Department of Chemistry applied for the same grant. It was a university-based grant available to any student in the department. Both proposals were, for what I believe to be, perfectly good areas to pursue. Our two labs are by no means in competition when it comes to our research—we’re physical chemistry and they are synthesis chemistry. Both labs are in two entirely different fields of work. Keep in mind that this is a grant that students apply for, not professors. The professor for the lab that got the grant introduced himself to one of the grant committee members before they met to discuss the grant. Needless to say, there were some upset people. The sad thing is our two fields of work complement each other as we both work RNA. This event burnt any bridges before they were even built. There could have been a lot of progress made with our two groups working together.

I would like to know if that professor thought he was being immoral or not. This seems out of place because his students love and respect him. Finally, this brings me to the actual point of my post. I fully endorse requiring an ethics course for science students. Future scientists should be aware of ethics and how it pertains to science. From a philosophy standpoint, the only way to address the problem is to have discussion. Letting people know there is a problem is sometimes enough to start change. Of course there will still be immoral people but with any luck they will slowly be dissolved into the “ether” of science.

On a side-point: the idea of peer-review reminds me of a quote by Winston Churchill: “Democracy is the worst form of government. But all others have been tried.”

Response to Proposal L

I agree with Graham that the primary concern is lack of information. But there was another point that was discussed in class, and that was the notion that they aren’t getting any medication at all. So, why should it matter if they are given placebos and not informed? These sugar pills will have no affects on the subjects, so there is no risk of harm. Therefore, the fact that they are given placebos has no physical implications. I think that this study could go forward if the researchers put a disclaimer in their paperwork that the pregnant women sign. It should say two things:
1) There is a possibility of the subject receiving a placebo.
2) Those who are given the placebo will have no risks associated with taking that placebo.
This information discloses all of the relevant information that directly relates to the subjects.
The other issue that our group had with this proposal was about the “risks” that were told to the subjects. Yes, we agreed that the knowledge of a potential risk during a pregnancy (which is already a stressful experience for the mother) could increase the stress levels of the participants. Even though the women would be giving their consent to participate in the study, there could be complications that arise after the subject has started participating in the study. If the effects of this placebo could have a psychologically beneficial outcome, couldn’t the thought of the risks have a reversed psychological effect on the subject? The mind is a powerful thing, and we can get ourselves to believe something if we really put our minds to it. Since we thought that this was such an important aspect of the study, maybe the researchers could put some psychological testing into the pre-screening to ensure that the women are prepared to deal with the associated “risks”.
There was one other aspect of this study I want to address… Since I am concerned with the lack of information given to the subjects, I am wondering why this wouldn’t apply to the controls as well? They are told that they have a genetic marker that makes them ineligible for the study, when in fact the researchers of this study are using the data collected form those individuals as the control data. It might be a little tricky to tell the women that they are actually controls for a study that has no medication administered, so maybe that is why they are told about the genetic marker (I am not sure how a medical researcher would approach this situation). But it seems that if we want to inform the participants as much as possible, we should be concerned that the control subjects are informed as much as the participating subjects.

Doctor who claimed MMR vaccine-Autism link may have falsified data

The Sunday Times reported this week that Andrew Wakefield, the doctor who published his findings of a possible link between the MMR vaccine (measles, mumps, and rubella) and Autism in children, appears to have essentially falsified his data by misinterpreting patient information. Although the study, published in The Lancet in 1998, only involved 12 children, the results of the study were sensationalized by the media, causing fear in many parents. This led to a 12% decrease in MMR vaccinations of children (dropped from 92% to below 80%, well below the 95% "herd immunity" requirement to protect the general population from measles). As a result, we've begun to see a rise in measles--the number of confirmed cases jumped from 56 cases in the UK in 1998 to 1,348 in 2008! Wakefield and his research partners have not confessed to any wrongdoing, but the investigation continues.

This is a perfect example of misconduct in reseach since we're talking about research ethics this week. See the article here. If you're interested, there's a ScienceBlogs thread discussing the issue here.

Proposal L and Animal Research

First off, my group unanimously agreed to go ahead with Proposal L. This was the proposal where they want to study the placebo effect on pregnant women with morning sickness. Of course this proposal was not perfect... It would need some adjustments to make it a legitimmate scientific experiment. This was just a proposal, but the overall purpose of this experiment I view as extremely beneficial. I believe that these women signed up for a scientific experiement for a reason and that the controversy of the deception in this proposal is not an issue. Giving someone a sugar pill is not going to kill them, scar them for life, or do any damage what-so-ever. I gave my friend a sugar pill once and told her it was asprin for her headache... her headache went away. Maybe her headache would have gone away by itself, but maybe alot of pain and illnesses are psychological and I feel that this placebo effect should be studied. These women will be notified after the experiment is going on, and I am sure that 98% of those women would be glad they contributed to helping other women with morning sickness. What if morning sickness was all in the brain, what if it isnt? When people say that science research is bull and what is the purpose of science, then they need to stop taking vitamins, stop taking cold medicine or pain medicine and then come back and tell me that there is no reason for science.
This leads me to animal research... I am a pre vet major, I have been an animal lover since I was a little girl, my life revolves around horses and other animals. As much as I love animals, I value the life of a complete stranger over any of my pets. Humans are superior, we have souls, emotions, intelligence, reason, etc. An animal has instincts and treats us the same way it would treat the alpha animal in its herd, pack, flock, or whatever. Animal research does not just benefit humans, it benefits other animals as well. So one cannot argue that humans are the only ones benefitting from animal research. We do have vaccinations, pain medicine, antibiotics, and cosmetics for animals. So when ten animals have to go through pain or discomfort, they are saving thousands and thousands more animals and humans from that same pain and discomfort. Honestly, I would give my dog or my horses to research if there was a chance that by doing so researchers could find a cure for my brothers disability. I dont think consent is the issue, an animal cant sign a consent. They dont even think that way! I have watched animals beat the shit out of another animal, chew their own legs off, eat their own young, and kill one another. So to compare babies to animals is ridiculous! Sorry to put it so harshly, but we dont eat our own young... I think that alone puts us above animals. With all the benefits that animal research has brought us, even if animals have to suffer, I think it is worth it to make advancements in science. If you dont think so, then again, stop taking cold medicine the next time you have a cold or dont take pain killers the next time you hurt your self, or use neosporin on your cut, or eat half the foods you eat, dont get the flu vaccination, if you get rabies or a snake bite dont go to the hospital for help, if or when you have children dont give your children cough syrup when they are horribly sick. Basically stop using any modern convience that you have in your house, because whether or not they are still testing those products on animals, they did have to test an animal at one point in history for that product to gain the knowledge whether or not YOU or YOUR family or friends would die from using that product. I would much rather an animal die then one of my family members or friends. Im sure if a dog was in the same position we are in, they would choose to test on us, but that is not the case. And again, humans arent the only ones who benefit from animal research. I think this post is long enough so I will stop there.... but if you didnt notice I am totally for animal research.

Proposal L

I do agree with Roxy that the control group in the placebo study requires more thought before it can be used as a proper control. I also agree that subjects of the study should be informed of the possibility of receiving a placebo. It could have an effect on the outcome of the study but I believe morning sickness to be a physiological condition caused by hormonal imbalance. I am very skeptical about the placebo effect as a whole but don’t see a problem with researching it further.
We can presume that a woman who volunteers for this study, in spite of the erroneous risks, would be able to handle the stress caused by the study. It seems unlikely that a perceived risk could create actual physiological risk. This appears to be equally as unfounded as the study itself. As I suggested to my group, it might be helpful to approach this study as a physician would. First and foremost, do no harm. As far as we know there are no inherent physiological risks associated with the study. My primary concern is the lack of informed consent. They are definitely not getting what they signed up for. If the perceived risk was real then consent would be a necessity.
Testing placebo hypotheses seems to be extremely difficult without informing the test subjects. I do think it could be worth studying, especially when the risks are virtually non-existent.

Research Proposal K

In response to Experimental Proposal K we decided as a group that the research should not be allowed to proceed. The decision was a unanimous decision. Our reasons for why are:

1) The researchers are targeting and exploiting individuals who are poor and lack the ability to use other prevention measures. If the ointment is shown to be effective, the question remains as how it will be made available to these individuals, since as noted they already cannot afford other measures.

2) Even though the ointment deters bites from Anopheles, the increase in bites by other mosquitoes poses a potential risk. Individuals using the ointment could be open to other diseases or infections carried by other mosquitoes.

3) At the end of the proposal it is noted that there is a slight risk of individuals developing long-lasting sores, and that these individuals would be studied in a sub-study. Also, that it is unknown if these sores are treatable. So what is to happen to the individuals who develop sores after the sub-study if the sores are not treatable?

If the researchers were able to address concerns and answer our questions (e.g. the ointment would offered to individuals in poverty for free), our verdict would still be to not allow the research to proceed. This is primarily due to similar reasoning that is stated in (1), the individuals to be used in the study would still be exploited.

Rachel, Kelsey, Kristian

Research Proposal L

We voted unanimously against the placebo proposal for the following reasons:

1. The factor of "risk" wasn't being controlled for. The experiment would need to include another control group that takes the placebos without being informed of the non-existent risk.

2. Something is wrong in principle about deceiving pregnant women and intentionally denying them treatment for morning sickness, if there is indeed a treatment.

3. We think the women should at least be told there is a possibility of receiving a placebo (even though all of them are). This is common practice in clinical trials, and as long as it's kept double-blind (i.e., neither the patient nor the clinician knows that the drugs are indeed placebos) we don't see how this would significantly alter the results.

4. In general, there are too many confounding factors-- not all of the women will experience the same degree of morning sickness, if at all, and their hormones are already fluctuating in response to the pregnancy. Furthermore, if the perceived risk does create a physiological effect, there's a possibility that the mother's and fetus' health may be affected. This risk may even outweigh the perceived "nonexistent" risk.

We realize that the women signing up for such a study would be committing themselves to more of a risk than they actually are being exposed to. However, we feel the fundamental problem is that the women are not providing fully informed consent because they do not know the full scope of the study. To do so may render the experiment impossible, but perhaps this it is reason enough not to see it through.

Research Proposal K Response

Verdict:- No.

The benefits that would have been achieved from the study did not outweigh the risk because:

1) medicine/ointment proposed for the study was meant for prevention but there are presently much more effective and cost-efficient ways of preventing malaria.

2) the increased risk from non-Anopheles mosquito was proclaimed to increase due to the application of the ointment hence increasing the risk for several other mosquito carrying diseases just for determining the effectiveness of an ointment.

Question we would like to ask:
Do they have another way of human testing ? (like in a lab with controlled environment for managing and treating the side effects or complications that might arise)

Are they going to provide sufficient information to the volunteer and will they be providing medical facilities (from basic to specialized treatment) in case of complication ?

If they could answer the question of an alternative way of human testing, particularly in a laboratory where people are not exploited, complications can be managed efficiently and effectiveness of the ointment can be diligently monitored then we (committee) could reconsider the proposal. However before agreeing to the proposal we would also like to see that all forms of treatment and medical care are available for the volunteers.

Lauren, Lungsi, and Thando

Reaction to research proposals

Research Proposal J:

Proposal J brings up the issue of animal research and whether it is ethical to use animals to test the ointment discussed in the article. In principle, I believe that the use of animal testing is wrong. The reason for this is that animals are not capable of giving voluntary consent and therefore should not be used in this testing.

Research Proposal K:

Proposal K discusses using volunteer human subjects in impoverished areas to test the ointment for malaria. The ethical issue here involves targeting a poor area to do the study on. This seems to be somewhat minor to me, since the subjects are volunteers in the study.

Research Proposal L:

Proposal L discusses the placebo effect and the neurochemistry behind this phenomenon. The study uses the volunteer pregnant woman. The ethical issue here is that the study does not allow for full disclosure to the volunteers involved in the study, because of the nature of the study. I feel that although it is deceptive to the volunteers, it is necessary in order to find out more behind the placebo effect.

Asking the question "Is this science really worth pursueing?"

I was going to reply to the Tuskegee post about this, but I felt like this topic deserved its own post. Posting this there would just sidetrack the topic...

So how far do we take science?

A question like this we faced in the 1940's the pursuit of nuclear fission--one result was a potentially awesome power source (though, in my opinion, our government is too stupid to realize it) and another was the atomic bomb.

Another, more recent, example is Hadron. Do we really need to know what makes up subatomic particles if we already know how to work with molecules (chemistry!)?

So now that I presented two examples, where do we draw the line? Can a definite line really be drawn here? I can see this becoming more and more of an issue as our understanding of science grows. Perfect example of a question we now face (or we are going to face.. pretty sure we're facing it now though) is genetic engineering in humans. There are a lot of issues in this topic--like curing genetic disorders, etc etc. But whose to say we stop at genetic disorders? If we can get rid of some cancers, why not get rid of "ugliness" or choose the eye color of kids?

My personal opinion is that science is something we should pursue but theres limits. Like genetic engineering in humans isn't really something we should pursue to the point where we can manipulate genes. Its cruel, but I think genetic risk is a risk we should take. Removing it makes reproducing more of a chore than something special. Instead, we should pursue cures to diseases, injuries and the like. Take for example the (near) science-fiction idea of growing organs. That'd be totally awesome... "Kidneys blew up? Here! Have a new pair, made from your own DNA!"

So how does everyone else feel about this idea? I really didn't touch on "how" as I think there is absolutely no clear-cut answer to this question.

The Results of the Tuskgee Study

After reading the Tuskgee Study I found myself asking one question; did the Tuskgee Study help scientists better understand syphilis? Obviously it showed several ways on how not to conduct scientific research, but did the study find any new information to help scientist treat/cure/prevent syphilis? I am still not sure what the goal of the Tuskgee Study was, or if there was a goal at all. It seems to me that whatever the goal was it was lost during the course of the study. Whatever you blame this failure on, (the Great Depression, lack of funding, poor management) the study became another chapter of embarrassing American racism. This brings up another question; did the people conducting the study realize that they were being racist? To say something is racist one has to make an ethical judgment on a situation. Like many scientist of the day a majority of the people conducting the Tuskgee Study believed that ethics were not a relevant part of science. John Heller, who was the director of the Venereal Diseases unit of the PHS from 1943 to 1948 said in a 1981 interview that, “The men's status did not warrant ethical debate. They were subjects, not patients; clinical material, not sick people.” This shows that many of the scientists during this time period did not believe that they were being bigots or racist, but does it grant them forgiveness? If anything was learned from this study, I hope it was that ethics should be a part of scientific research and should be used in every aspect of it.

(Also, if anyone can find anything about how the study helped the scientific community better understand syphilis please share it.)

Source: http://www.tuskegee.edu/Global/Story.asp?s=1207598