Search results

Rather than rehash the disclosure of conflicts that led to the downfall of the now-former Chief Medical Officer at Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, consider how this episode reflects a more common problem of "entitled" powerful people. Here are two remedies that don't require investigations and can possibly help correct medical research's vacillating integrity dilemma.

Once again, we’re told, the pharmaceutical industry is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of Americans. This time the deceit is ghost writing, the practice by which someone other than the named author writes a clinical trial or scientific review article. The purported scandal is that ghost writing activities are supported financially by industry. As an April 15 Washington Post headline proclaimed, "Key Vioxx Research Was Written by Merck, Documents Allege."

If you are educated by Google, you see Deniers for Hire have called us a "pro-industry front group" - Greenpeace, Mother Jones, NRDC, U.S. Right to Know, and SourceWatch, the whole cabal. The problem with their argument (other than the fact it is ad hominem) is that, if it really was true that ACSH is a corporate shill, we would have to be really, really bad at it, given our content.

Three well-known anti-GMO groups have attacked the New York Times for publishing a generally excellent story about crop biotechnology. Natural News, for example, called the article "pure propaganda masquerading as journalism." Unsurprisingly, Natural News is wrong.

A review of 100 news media articles on new cancer drugs found that about one-half described the subject drug in a superlative tone that was generally uncalled for and likely to generate false hope.

1. Medicare Part D was controversial during its passage yet now is regarded as a success - and it may be the future of Obamacare. Making that case was no less than a Senator who was against Medicare Part D at the time, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, whom I met at the American Action Forum meeting.

The New York Times objectively reports on how the news media, politicians and science were wrong about "crack baby" epidemic. But they never apologize to their readers or accept responsibility.

Peer review has been around for quite some time. But its history features interactions with the technology and forms of sharing information, with censorship, the rise and fall of generalists as well as concerns about marketing. 

A busy week for our health and science journalists, who were picked up by a range of media outlets across the political spectrum. Here's how some of our reporting was referenced.

What if someone offered to sell you water that promised to contain extra oxygen? And what if they promised it would hydrate you three times more than ordinary tap water consumed by peasants that didn't have your wealth? Wouldn't that make you a better parent? Shouldn't you buy it? Of course not, since it's all nonsense.

Last month, a jury rejected arguments by two National Security Agency workers who claimed that their brain diseases were caused by a magnetic tape-erasing system they used in the course of their work. The judge dismissed some of the plaintiffs' arguments as junk science and the jury rejected the rest, to the delight of the defendant, Electro-Matic Products Co., manufacturer of the tape-erasing system. This was a victory for science and the legal system, which have both been abused in recent decades by people stoking fear of electric and magnetic fields.

In the media, every food is either a magical cure-all or a hidden danger lurking in your pantry. Instead of addressing our poor lifestyle choices, they chase sensationalized nutrition fads and rodent-based research to deliver headlines that sound more like infomercials than science reporting. Apparently, the only credentials needed to dispense health advice are a talent for buzzwords and a willingness to ignore basic scientific principles.

Everyone is perpetually confused about how often nutrition experts change their minds about the health impact of consuming eggs. In the past several weeks alone, two powerful studies -- of course, contradicting each other -- were published in major medical journals. One states that eggs will prevent heart attacks; the other that they will lead to heart attacks and death. What's the real message? ACSH advisor Dr. David Seres explains.

When an issue arises over a scientific paper, there's a somewhat standard course of action that's used to handle disputes. However, when controversy recently erupted over a paper in the journal Nature, it was handled a different way – and some are wondering why. 

There seems to be a reproducibility “crisis” in the sciences, where the results obtained by one group of researchers cannot be reproduced by another, putting the validity of the original work in doubt. What is the fate of those papers? Do they languish in some academic backwater hell lining birdcages?

Climate change is real; we contribute to it. But warmer temperatures aren't driving unprecedented increases in the number of heart attacks we suffer.

Rewind to the year 1984 when the EPA first announced that Alar, a plant growth regulator (NOT a pesticide), caused cancer in animals. Now fast-forward five years to 1989, the year that the agency proposed banning this chemical based on what the EPA perceived to be an unacceptably high cancer risk to humans as well. The decision may have had something to do with a 60 Minutes special that ran at the exact same time and was successful in scaring 50 million Americans about the alleged dangers of Alar.

Many activists and reporters claim we should eat little or no meat to prevent climate change. But instead of presenting arguments, proponents of this radical proposal seek to disqualify their critics with personal attacks.

Last week a study reported that according to a meta-analysis, cannabis was no better than a placebo in the treatment of pain. As you would expect, that study generated some headlines, but almost uniformly, the media buried the last paragraphs about their role in generating expectations.

Scientific progress is built on experiments, data, research, and constant questioning. While fraud is not a new issue, big data and Artificial Intelligence present challenges that dramatically increase the risk of fraud. New tools need to be developed to identify and reduce scientific fraud. Without them, the foundation of the scientific process is at risk.

The glyphosate scandal involving the International Agency for Research on Cancer has severely – and perhaps irreparably – damaged the reputation of the World Health Organization. Sixteen scientists contacted by Reuters refused to answer any questions about the glyphosate document. That's not how science operates; that's how Fight Club operates.

ACSH Scientific Advisor Dr. Stan Young has been appointed to EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. This is a great move for making sure we implement evidence-based improvements in air quality.

Scientists are generally regarded as ethical and honest – the polar opposite of politicians. But there's a disturbing trend taking place in the scientific community: retracted papers, often due to fraud. This one, which appeared in the journal Science, focuses on harm to fish from tiny plastic particles. It is a doozy.

Advisers in the news, and we are everywhere.

There are naysayers who want to eliminate or otherwise "dethrone" the Nobel Prizes. Why? Sexism and racism, of course.