“Everyone learns from science; it all depends on how you use
the knowledge.” Quoted by Grissom from
the tv show, CSI, this quote is applicable to the controversy of bias and reproducibility
in science. Science is so valuable that there
is immense pressure to publish data in top-tier journals and obtain grants
during a period when the percentage of grants funded is extremely low. It’s a cycle that can quickly steamroll out
of control.
The pressure to deliver ground-breaking results can lead to publications
with “mixed-up images, mislabeling, faulty descriptions, and inexplicable discrepancies” as was determined to occur in July 2014 when two papers
published by a Japanese group regarding the STAP phenomenon were retracted from
Nature. The responsibility of the
false data was so immense that it caused one of the scientists to take his own
life. While this is an extreme example,
it demonstrates the repercussions of falsifying data and the importance of
integrity in science. One’s name is
always tied to his or her work even after death, thus their integrity can always
be viewed through published literature.
While reproducibility may be viewed as the gold standard in
science, medicine shows that personalized medicine is the current trend. In a way, this is applicable to the world of
science, as every animal facility and laboratory is different. Experiments conducted in one environment may
not be accurately reproduced in another equivalent environment at a different institution. Despite the lack of reproducibility at
different institutions, I do believe it is very important to have the science
reproduced at in house. Doing a study
once is not enough to maintain one’s integrity.
After all, one’s integrity will take a person further in life than a
science career.
Not only does the responsibility of accurate scientific communication
fall on scientists, but it also is the responsibility of the media to precisely
report findings when reporting about new findings. As pointed out in, “Half of the cancer drugsjournalists called ‘miracles’ and ‘cures’ were approved by the FDA,” “about 55
percent of cases” using superlatives related to cancer treatments were made by
journalists. This leaves about 30%
percent of cases where doctors, hospitals and universities used the
superlatives. This shows an important
lack of communication between media and the science community but also further
shows the falsification of data from scientists. It provides false hope to those truly
suffering with a disease. Thus, the
media and medical communities must work more closely together to avoid such
controversies and maintain the integrity of all parties involved.
No comments:
Post a Comment