Bias in research. or money matters.
Science is supposed fair and unbiased this always isn't the case.
A study revealed that studies that were funded by drug companies and other for profit entities were more likely to report positive findings, than researched funded by non profit entities(1 ).
An example of this is research studies financed by the food industry are much more likely to produce favorable results than independently financed research (2).
Also epidemiologist John Ioannidis said that most articles published in journals are wrong. A few of the reason for these error are the size of the study, this can lead to errors. Another is a biases based on assumptions, taking a side in a debate involving the issue studied, finding evidence that contradicts the researchers beliefs (3 ).
Researchers are not objective as they could be, a medical journal said "Emotional investment in particular ideas and personal interest in academic success may lead investigators to overemphasize the importance of their findings and the quality of their work. Even more serious conflicts arise when for-profit organizations, including pharmaceutical companies, provide funds for research and consulting, conduct data management and analyses, and write reports on behalf of the investigators." (4 ).
Scientist were surveyed on the subject of NIH grants and politically sensitive areas. Half said they removed "red flag" words from titles and abstracts of their grant submission the words include gay, lesbian, homophobia, anal sex, needle-exchange, and AIDS. A quarter reframed their research to avoid marginalized or stigmatized populations. A quarter had dropped research that they thought would be politically sensitive (5 ).
Out and out fraud can be involved in published studies South Korean researcher Hwang Woo Suk faked his research in stem cells and had them published in an issue of science 2005 (6 ).
The debate over science can be tainted by (Or possibly) litigation over claims of libel. A Danish radiologist, Dr Henrik Thomsen raised concern over medication * (Omniscan)its makers sued him for libel. Simon Singh, a science writer was sued by the British Chiropractic Association after describing some of its treatment as bogus. A cardiologist Peter Wilmshurst was sued after he question the effectiveness of a heart implant device (7 ).
Joanna Kempner a Rutgers University sociologist said "many scientists self-censor rather than publish findings contrary to disciplinary or ideological boundaries . They may avoid controversial areas of research altogether, rather than face burdensome regulatory requirements . Some advocacy groups may also intimidate scientists. Animal rights activists, for example, have successfully dissuaded some scientists from using certain kinds of animal models in research ." (8 ).
Using open ended concept of threat to national security has also chilled sceince. 32 scientists and editors of some of the most respected scientific journals agreed to self-censor if they think scientific advances would harm national security. Barry Bloom, dean of Harvard' s School of Public Health said "That's a chilling example of knowing whatever you do might not get published because an editor might decide that it will look bad for (Attorney General) John Ashcroft," (8).