Research Methods in Health Sciences

Module 3 Discussion

Introduction

Peer-reviewed research is the gold standard of mainstream science. A peer-reviewed article has

been critically read and reviewed by trained scientists. Peers are given the opportunity to

anonymously comment on the adequacy of the design and the validity of the conclusions that are

drawn from the scientific work under review.

A number of events in the U.S. and abroad have refocused the scientific community on

historical issues of whether, and how, integrity of our technical literature can be assured.

Solutions to this problem are neither simple nor certain.

Instructions

1. Read the articles/handouts in this Module.

The 10 Greatest Cases of Fraud in University Research.

http://www.onlineuniversities.com/blog/2012/02/the-10-greatest-cases-of-fraud- inuniversity-research/

Feb. 27, 2012. Accessed Jan 13, 2016.

Horowitz E. Studies show many studies false.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/2014/07/01/studies-show- manystudies-are-false/PP2NO6lKd7HMyTZa1iCHGP/story.html

July 1, 2014.

Accessed Jan 13, 2016

Evans I, Thornton H, Chalmers I, et al. Testing Treatments: Better

Research for Better Healthcare. 2nd edition. London: Pinter & Martin;

2011. Chapter 10, Research - good, bad and unnecessary. Available

from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK66209/ Accessed Jan 16,

2016.

How to design a really bad study of the Feingold diet.

http://www.feingold.org/how-to-design-a-really-bad-study.html

Accessed Jan 13, 2016.

You may also consider conducting your own search for articles on research misconduct or bad

design.

2. Answer the following questions.

a. Given the information of bad research design and research fraud, how do you think these

cases of research fraud came to happen?

b. Do you think the scientists are responsible?

c. What might be done to prevent this from happening in the future?

i. NOTE: Be specific in your post regarding which article or scientist you are

referring to with your opinions and comments.