Should we put warning labels on scientific research papers / studies?

[Deleted]

You do realize that they already mention all the participants and fundings?

[RicardoZ]

Here in California we have warning labels all over the place about x causes cancer and be warned about using the product.

I got to thinking, maybe this would be a great thing to do for scientific research papers and studies as well?


1. If a corporation funds, even partially, either the research itself or the people in charge of it or funded who worked on the research it should say:

WARNING: this research is not from an independent source. Corporation xyz funded the research, or researchers were employed by corporation xyz.

2. If a government funded it, or funded people who worked on it, or people who worked on the research were employed by the government or universities that are partially funded by the government then it should say:

WARNING: this research is not from an independent source. The government funded at least parts of the research, or researchers were paid by the government or worked for universities that received government money.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Science is getting less reliable/credible every day.

[TZucchini]

Science is getting less reliable/credible every day.

Just because you disagree with the findings, doesn't mean science is less reliable.

[Gheld]

You do realize that they already mention all the participants and fundings?

It's also an ad hominem attack to rebut a paper based on the participants of the paper rather than the actual merits of it's content.

If Adolf Hitler did a research paper with funding provided by Monsanto and followed all the proper scientific research protocols it would be a perfectly valid paper, but the first thing your average person would go after is the names on the paper.

[Ekto]

Assuming the research is properly peer-reviewed, the problem isn't the research itself, it's people who cite two sentences of said research to make a larger point that the research doesn't actually support.

This pretty much sums it up. A proper research paper in any scientific field requires no mention of where the funding came from. It is not the fault of the scientist that someone ignorant of science, less educated, or with a political agenda misuses the information in the paper.

Having said that, many researchers already divulge this information, typically in an acknowledgements section.

[Deleted]

It's also an ad hominem attack to rebut a paper based on the participants of the paper rather than the actual merits of it's content.

If Adolf Hitler did a research paper with funding provided by Monsanto and followed all the proper scientific research protocols it would be a perfectly valid paper, but the first thing your average person would go after is the names on the paper.

Ironicly the Nazi's did do a lot of scientific research that normal, humane scientists would never do, we figured out a lot about the human body because of them. That doesn't mean they wheren't a bunch of murderous douchebags that deserved a painfull slow death.

[Ekto]

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Science is getting less reliable/credible every day.

No, it is not. The standards for scientific scrutiny and proper peer-review have never been lowered. What makes you think science is less reliable/credible every day?

[Lynarii]

No, it is not. The standards for scientific scrutiny and proper peer-review have never been lowered. What makes you think science is less reliable/credible every day?

Science is as good as it's ever been really. Maybe better, since if you look at history there's always been a few horrible things going on at any given time. What has become less reliable/credible every day is journalism. So many of the news sources that have been impartial and done good reporting have diminished, if not been outright replaced by tabloid-style sensationalism, poor reporting, and sometimes outright deliberate falsehoods. Why go through the effort of actually reading a scientific report and reporting the actual information to the public, when you can just print "OMG! Miracle drug that cures everything banned for being too effective!" and make ten times as much money?

[Spectral]

I can't speak for other fields, but as someone that actively publishes in microbiology and immunology journals, I make a statement about potential conflicts of interest and list all funding sources. If you encounter a journal that doesn't do that, I'd probably be highly suspicious of the veracity of its contents.

A quick example of how this looks can be found in a paper I just randomly picked from I and I, which is a credible ASM journals. Here. Scroll down to the Acknowledgements section and see the funding sources listed. This is a pretty standard practice.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it is not. The standards for scientific scrutiny and proper peer-review have never been lowered. What makes you think science is less reliable/credible every day?

It's much easier to find sketchy journals with shoddy peer-review standards to publish in these days. For people that are decently trained, it's pretty easy to spot these as second-rate, but they drape a thin veneer of legitimacy over what's published by aping the form and style of legitimate journals. But yeah, Nature and Science and Cell have as high (or higher) publishing standards as ever.

[Wildtree]

Here in California we have warning labels all over the place about x causes cancer and be warned about using the product.

I got to thinking, maybe this would be a great thing to do for scientific research papers and studies as well?


1. If a corporation funds, even partially, either the research itself or the people in charge of it or funded who worked on the research it should say:

WARNING: this research is not from an independent source. Corporation xyz funded the research, or researchers were employed by corporation xyz.

2. If a government funded it, or funded people who worked on it, or people who worked on the research were employed by the government or universities that are partially funded by the government then it should say:

WARNING: this research is not from an independent source. The government funded at least parts of the research, or researchers were paid by the government or worked for universities that received government money.

Scientific studies and papers are meant for scientists......

If science is used commercially as selling point to the public on products, then you do still go by the official government label.

Much like many infomercials about products that advertise with lab results etc... And in the end you get the:
"This product is not approved by the FDA results may vary, blabla, "

It's entirely up to you to let the subjective lab research get to you, or let the FDA guide you.

[Spectral]

It's also an ad hominem attack to rebut a paper based on the participants of the paper rather than the actual merits of it's content.

If Adolf Hitler did a research paper with funding provided by Monsanto and followed all the proper scientific research protocols it would be a perfectly valid paper, but the first thing your average person would go after is the names on the paper.

Conflicts of interest do matter though. They're not a reason to just dismiss legitimate, peer-reviewed findings, but it's perfectly legitimate to see a conflict of interest and think, "hm, maybe we should double check this in our lab". If the result is confirmed, that's great! If it's not... well, we have a problem.

[Gheld]

Conflicts of interest do matter though. They're not a reason to just dismiss legitimate, peer-reviewed findings, but it's perfectly legitimate to see a conflict of interest and think, "hm, maybe we should double check this in our lab". If the result is confirmed, that's great! If it's not... well, we have a problem.

Yes, in the ideal world. But the fact is that because the majority of people are scientifically illiterate their instinct is to move immediately toward dismissal if they see a conflict of interest. They don't say "Oh look, that is an interesting result, there's a possible conflict of interest but it's worth repeating this study." they say "Herpaderr monsanto, herpaderr corporate science greed blah blah blah". And what's worse is that they take any study they can find, which matches their opinion, and tout it as proof positive of their personal beliefs, even though to call something confirmed scientifically it has to come up true 100% of the time.

So I get back to my original snark, which is to ban research studies and force everybody to do the experiments for themselves and draw their own conclusions based on the data.

[Kujako]

All scientific statements must start with something akin to "all current evidence suggests" and end with "but we could be wrong". These do not have to be stated in word or writing, but they are assumed to be there or it's not science. A lot of what is taught and reported these days is not science. Which is a pity.

[Lightwysh]

I subscribe to the opinion that politicians should be forced to wear the logos of organizations, companies and the names of individuals that they accept donations from (with the largest donors getting the most prominence), and thus agree that monetary donations need to be disclosed.

That said:


Would be on every single scientific paper ever written, and thus be meaningless.

So politicians would be like nascar drivers? I'm ok w this.

[Deleted]

1. If a corporation funds, even partially, either the research itself or the people in charge of it or funded who worked on the research it should say:

WARNING: this research is not from an independent source. Corporation xyz funded the research, or researchers were employed by corporation xyz.

2. If a government funded it, or funded people who worked on it, or people who worked on the research were employed by the government or universities that are partially funded by the government then it should say:

WARNING: this research is not from an independent source. The government funded at least parts of the research, or researchers were paid by the government or worked for universities that received government money.

What exactly is an "independent source", then?

One guy doing the research, funding it by himself, paying for all the research equipment from his own pocket?

Should the guy be Republican, as well?

[Kasierith]

Stifling the ability of small institutions to launch studies because they can no longer get donations from third parties would be extremely bad. Most major companies are involved with helping to fund these, even if that's as far as they go; I helped run a scientific study where an interested pharmaceutical company paid for the lab equipment. Did it help to have expensive lab needs supplied for us? Yes, it did. Was it enough to sway our opinions to one side? Nope. Organizations and such fund studies gambling on them turning out to be beneficial for the company instead of harmful.

- - - Updated - - -

Conflicts of interest do matter though. They're not a reason to just dismiss legitimate, peer-reviewed findings, but it's perfectly legitimate to see a conflict of interest and think, "hm, maybe we should double check this in our lab". If the result is confirmed, that's great! If it's not... well, we have a problem.

That comes down to scientific literacy, though, and understanding how to interpret the data and how it was obtained. If a group ran their own numbers instead of havinga a third party do the data, I'd be instantly suspicious. Likewise if the discussion and results don't appear to actually apply to the data collected. I wouldn't expect most non-sciency people to know the finer points of interpreting the data from a scientific journal, though.

[RaoBurning]

I think we need a more scientifically literate populace. Seems like a more effective solution for a broader range of issues. Like, seriously, teach people how to check some damn sources. This new year alone I've had to point out to my family that obviously stupid statements from politicians (even by political standards) were taken from satire sources and filtered through goofy Facebook pages.

In short: no.

[Subetei]

There is already something like this. It's called peer review. That paper that supposedly proved or implied that Debt in excess of 90% of gdp caused slower economic growth was shot down.

[Spectral]

There is already something like this. It's called peer review. That paper that supposedly proved or implied that Debt in excess of 90% of gdp caused slower economic growth was shot down.

That wasn't due to the peer-review process, the paper got published. Later examination of it showed a spreadsheet error that fucked up the conclusions royally.

I love economics and think it's fascinating, but let's be clear, it's not really science. The near complete inability to test hypotheses in a thorough fashion leaves it as a discipline that has utility, but isn't strictly a science. Certain chunks of econometrics that make narrow, limited hypotheses and then crosscheck them with the data might be, but macroeconomics really isn't even close.

[Subetei]

That wasn't due to the peer-review process, the paper got published. Later examination of it showed a spreadsheet error that fucked up the conclusions royally.

I love economics and think it's fascinating, but let's be clear, it's not really science. The near complete inability to test hypotheses in a thorough fashion leaves it as a discipline that has utility, but isn't strictly a science. Certain chunks of econometrics that make narrow, limited hypotheses and then crosscheck them with the data might be, but macroeconomics really isn't even close.

post publication review is part of the peer review process. I give example:

"[As] soon as I heard that the book was going to come out in England, I immediately sent copies of Finkelstein's work to a number of British scholars and journalists who are interested in the Middle East—and they were ready. As soon as the book [From Time Immemorial] appeared, it was just demolished, it was blown out of the water. Every major journal, the Times Literary Supplement, the London Review, the Observer, everybody had a review saying, this doesn't even reach the level of nonsense, of idiocy. A lot of the criticism used Finkelstein's work without any acknowledgment, I should say—but about the kindest word anybody said about the book was "ludicrous," or "preposterous.""