Throughout chapter ten of Rigor Mortis by, Richard Harris it is easy to decipher that biomedical literature isn’t reliable. ““How many trials of a billion dollars each can we do to refute a single claim out of the millions of claims that observational studies put forth?… We would need quintillions of dollars just to show what things are worthless before we start doing our real job.”” (pg. 219 Rigor Mortis) I believe if scientist cannot function because what they claim to be right turns out to be wrong how can people or scientist trust any claims made?
An issue to start off with is scientists aren’t asking proper questions. Fran Miedema said scientist in his medical center publish approximately three thousand five hundred papers per year; stating ““and I don’t know who reads them. Have you read one of our papers?”” … The audience was silent.” (pg.225 Rigor Mortis) Easy questions are being asked that are answered quickly instead of spending years on a precarious project. If you think about it only one can move science forward. I feel that if you aren’t willing to go out there and ask an absurd question who will? Scientist in my opinion are wasting their time with many (50%) studies that aren’t being read, instead of focusing on one that could strongly impact biomedical science.
Reproducing labs is another issue scientist face. Journal publishers can help by publishing more studies that fail to replicate a reported favorable finding. The Science magazine didn’t have statistics editors till two thousand fifteen! That is absurd yet shows journals could also improve because peer review is usually unpaid, therefore taking more time to find issues in a paper since there is no pay for the labor. In my opinion journals yes need to change to help scientists see what is correct and incorrect but to also allow science to evolve.
Ahmed Alkhateeb suggested scientist should publish smaller bits of research focusing on new data rather than trying to insert new statistics into a broader scientific narrative. I agree with his idea; if this were to take place the data would come together and scientist could add pieces of information to what others had already collected. This would be a community way in increasing our knowledge.
I believe to accelerate the development of biomedical science it should slow down. Meaning taking on fewer projects but doing those with precision. This is improving the quality of work rather than focusing on the quantity of labs and papers. For example, in Amelia B.’s blog post, HeLa! By OutKast she talked about, “…any slight breach in hygiene standards could mean that your research cells could be contaminated and outnumbered by HeLa cells.” Supporting my point that you need to focus on the quality and not just on getting the lab or paper done and moving on to the next one. Science should be about what is right because if a foundation is uncertain then so is the rest of the work.