Now on ScienceBlogs: Live Organ Transplants

Seed Media Group

Reality is always more complicated than you think.

Profile

jake-head-shot.jpgJake Young is a MD/PhD student at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in NYC getting a PhD in Behavioral Neuroscience. He holds a BS and MS in Biological Sciences from Stanford University. If a volcano were to erupt Pompei-style in Central Park, his body would be preserved in a scoliotic posture over his lab desk. Archeaologists would later conclude that he spent most of his day training rats to perform tricks, until he went blind building electrical equipment by hand using a dissecting microscope. But, still, he died happy...because science is cool.

Pure Pedantry is a blog about science -- social sciences and otherwise -- as well as academic and scientific culture. No one can live on science alone, so I also like to dwell on pop culture, periodically explore the humanities, and indulge in other types of geeky goodness.

DISCLAIMERS: 1) Jake Young is not a licensed physician (yet). He is merely a medical student. The information published on this site is not intended for use in medical decision-making. Please seek advice from a licensed, medical professional before making any health decisions. 2) The opinions expressed are my own. They do not represent the views of SEED magazine or the educational establishments I currently attend or attended in the past.

Search

Archives

Blogroll


The Daily Read Science News Science Blogs Medicine Blogs Econ Blogs Papers to Read Comics Links to Pure Pedantry via

« Evidence for the stem cell theory of cancer development | Main | Pangea Ultima »

Industry practices bias

Category: Academic Bias
Posted on: January 9, 2007 11:20 AM, by NotoriousLTP

Shocking:

The study, published by the Public Library of Science online journal PLoS Medicine, echoes other findings that show industry-funded research on drugs is more likely to be favorable to the drugs than independent research.

Ludwig's team reviewed 111 studies on soft drinks, juice and milk that were published between 1999 and 2003.

"We chose beverages because they represent an area of nutrition that's very controversial, that's relevant to children, and involves a part of the food industry that is highly profitable and where research findings could have direct financial implications," Ludwig said.

Studies funded entirely by industry were four times to eight times more likely to be favorable to the financial interests of the sponsors than those paid for by other groups, the researchers found.

Of the 22 studies clearly identified as funded by companies or industry groups, just three, or 13.6 percent, had findings that were unfavorable to the beverage studied.

More than 38 percent of the independently funded studies were negative, the researchers found.

This "raises serious concerns that some food industries may distort the scientific record on diet and health," Martijn Katan, professor of nutrition at Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, wrote in a commentary in the same journal.

As I have said before, I try not to judge studies by their origin or how they are funded. However, I can't say that I am really that surprised...

Share this: Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter
Visit the Collective Imagination blog
Advertisement

© 2006-2009 Seed Media Group LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of Seed Media Group. All rights reserved.

Sites by Seed Media Group: Seed Media Group | ScienceBlogs | SEEDMAGAZINE.COM