Secret History: Return of the Black Death Channel 4, 7-8pm In 1348 the Black Death swept through London, killing people within days of the appearance of their first symptoms. Exactly how many died, and why, has long been a mystery. This Secret History documentary follows experts as they pick through the evidence and reveal why the plague killed on such a scale. And they ask, what might be coming next?

Medscape

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser pre-selection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Summary There is increasing concern that most current published research fi ndings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientifi c fi eld. In this framework, a research fi nding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a fi eld are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater fl exibility in designs, defi nitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater fi nancial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientifi c fi eld in chase of statistical signifi cance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientifi c fi elds, claimed research fi ndings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research. It can be proven that most claimed research fi ndings are false.

/pdf/why-most-published-research-findings-are-false-32jor6sj5q.pdf

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297&type=printable

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration

https://www.uu.nl/wetfilos/wetfil10/sprekers/Funtowicz_Ravetz_Futures_1993.pdf

Science for the post-normal age

Preface Conceptual and Historical Perspectives The Role of Theory in Risk Studies by Sheldon Krimsky A Social and Programmatic History of Risk Research by Dominic Golding Concepts of Risk: A Classification by Ortwin Renn Social, Cultural, and Psychological Paradigms Cultural Theory and Risk Analysis by Steve Rayner Perceptions of Risk: Reflections on the Psychometric Paradigm by Paul Slovic The Social Amplification of Risk: Progress in Developing an Integrative Framework by Roger Kasperson The Social Arena Concept of Risk Debates by Ortwin Renn Social Drama and Risk Evaluation by Ingar Palmlund The Role of Science in Risk Assessment Public Wisdom, Expert Fallibility: Toward a Conceptual Theory of Risk by Harry J. Otway Heuristics, Biases, and the Not-so-general Publics: Expertise and Error in the Assessment of Risks by William R. Freudenburg Three Types of Risk Assessment and the Emergence of Post-normal Science by Silvio O. Funtowicz and Jerome R. Ravetz Risk and Social Learning: Reification to Engagement by Brian Wynne Policy and Decision Frameworks A Conceptual Framework for Managing Low-Probability Events by Howard Kunreuther Expert Knowledge and Public Values in Risk Management: The Role of Decision Analysis by Detlof von Winterfeldt Inconsistent Values in Risk Management by Chris Whipple Reflections by Sheldon Krimsky and Dominic Golding Bibliography Index

Social Theories of Risk

Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted Biomedical Research?

Part 1 Foreword Chapter 2 Introduction Chapter 3 Stories of the Unholy Alliance Chapter 4 University-Industry Collaborations Chapter 5 Knowledge as Property Chapter 6 The Changing Ethos of Science Chapter 7 The Redemption of Federal Advisory Committees Chapter 8 Professors Incorporated Chapter 9 Conflicts of Interest Chapter 10 A Question of Bias Chapter 11 The Scientific Journals Chapter 12 The Demise of Public Science Chapter 13 Prospects for a New Moral Sensibility in Academia Chapter 14 Conclusion: Reinvesting in Public Interest Science

Introduction Pesticide Residues in Food: The Case of EDB The Release of Genetically Engineered Organisms into the Environment: The Case of Ice Minus A Natural Geological Hazard The Case of Radon Plant Closure: The ASARCO/Tacoma Smelter A Hazardous Waste Site: The Case of Nyanza

Environmental Hazards: Communicating Risks as a Social Process

Background: Increasing attention has been given to the transparency of potential confl icts of interest in clinical medicine and biomedical sciences, particularly in journal publishing and science advisory panels. The authors examined the degree and type of fities to the pharmaceutical industry of panel members responsible for revisions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) . Methods: By using multimodal screening techniques the authors investigated the fi nancial ties to the pharmaceutical industry of 170 panel members who contributed to the diagnostic criteria produced for the DSM-IV and the DSM-IV-TR. Results: Of the 170 DSM panel members 95 (56%) had one or more fi nancial associations with companies in the pharmaceutical industry. One hundred percent of the members of the panels on ‘Mood Disorders’ and ‘Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders’ had fi nancial ties to drug companies. The leading categories of fiinterest held by panel members were research funding (42%), consultan

/pdf/financial-ties-between-dsm-iv-panel-members-and-the-4jqcjgsuob.pdf

Sheldon Krimsky

Papers

Social Theories of Risk

Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted Biomedical Research?

Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted Biomedical Research?

Environmental Hazards: Communicating Risks as a Social Process

Financial ties between DSM-IV panel members and the pharmaceutical industry.