It is all about research and publishing. That is the pressure supposedly exerted on academics, scientists and some physicians – “publish or perish”.

Scientific research is no different than any other form of research from the perspective of “garbage in garbage out”. These days most of us do some form of research on the internet. It may be simply trying to find the very best camera or the very best doctor for a tragic illness. The internet is crammed full of valuable information and…garbage. Separating the wheat from the chaff can sometimes be difficult.

Scientific research can not have the same margin of error that we may be able to live with when we are shopping for a camera, for example. Scientific and medical research has a far broader and potentially more injurious result if it is, well…garbage.

The New York Times published an article discussing the recent increase in retractions that seems to be permeating scientific and medical research. The Times interviewed two noted editors of the Journal of Infection and Immunity. They have recently discovered dozens and dozens of retractions that have had to be issued by very noted scientific journals.

One of editors told the Times that “he feared that science had turned into a winner-take-all game with perverse incentives that lead scientists to cut corners and, in some cases, commit acts of misconduct.”

A Harvard Medical School professor stated that “there are problems all through the system.”

To be certain, this is a very scary epiphany for the scientific community to have and perhaps it really is a revelation to some of them. Sadly, it is not new to many people who have been victims of bad or skewed medical or scientific research. We have been writing about at least a portion of the problem for some time:

“Ghostwriting Mysteries of the Medical Device Industry” (2009)

“Ghosts Writing About Science and the Public Health” (2009)

“The Drug Business, Broadway, and Casper the Friendly Ghost” (2009)

“Pain Pumps and a Lack of “Reliable” Scientific Evidence” (2010)

“Scientific Research or Corporate Marketing?” (2010)

“Pride & Prejudice About Product Safety” (2010)

“Dietary Supplements — Litigating Unregulated “Drugs” (2010)

In the New York Times article the various experts offer explanations such as:

“What people do is they count papers, and they look at the prestige of the journal in which the research is published, and they see how may grant dollars scientists have, and if they don’t have funding, they don’t get promoted,” Dr. Fang said. “It’s not about the quality of the research.”

Dr. Ness likens scientists today to small-business owners, rather than people trying to satisfy their curiosity about how the world works. “You’re marketing and selling to other scientists,” she said. “To the degree you can market and sell your products better, you’re creating the revenue stream to fund your enterprise.”

Putting aside the very real danger to the lives of patients of promoting untrue, invalid or fabricated scientific research, there are also very practical, but just as damaging repercussions of this invalid research.

The medical and scientific industry has complained and whined for decades about lawyers bringing “junk science” into courtrooms in an effort to substantiate negligence cases in drug, medical device and medical negligence cases. The courts have gone so far as to impose standards, referred to in federal court as the Daubert Rule. The failure of a party to be able to have their science withstand the scrutiny of the Daubert principles can and will result in dismissal of claims. The problem is that much of the evaluation and analysis exacted in the Daubert rule is based upon research published in noted journals. Experts evaluating the science in those cases rely on research in those same scientific journals.

The ultimate damage can caused by judges who, at least in some cases, have been encouraged to dismiss cases based solely on one side or another arguing that the available research does not support the science being used by a particular party in a case. Tragically injured people have lawsuits dismissed by judges simply because the “scientific research” that the court decides to acknowledge as “authoritative” does not seem to support the claims.

We increasingly are discovering that the research used in courts to dismiss claims may be simply the result of paid “ghostwriting” by manufacturers; the greed for grant dollars; you are being a “small business owner” instead of a scientist; or the desire for career advancement.

The result? Tragically injured people, with very legitimate claims, are barred from having their “day in court”.

Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley has developed and launched a new website designed to provide consumers and clients with valuable information about a potentially dangerous drug — Pradaxa.

Searcy Denney believes that consumers deserve to be well informed about drugs, medical devices and products in order to prevent unnecessary injury or death. Our new Pradaxa site is a part of our continuing efforts to alert and educate about drugs and medical devices.

For the latest articles and information, please visit the Pradaxa site and for information concerning other drugs or medical devices, please visit our mass tort site, SearcyMassTort.com.

Are you really a “super-tasker”? Are you willing to risk your safety and the safety of others on the arrogant belief that you are?

Dr. David Strayer (University of Utah) and his associates have conducted very indepth research and testing in the area of distracted driving. Of necessity, a large portion of that research has focused on the human brain’s ability to multi-task and what affect that has on overall quality of cognitive and motor functioning.

Having read some of Dr. Strayer’s research, let me make it easier for you: for almost every single person on the planet, multi-tasking is a myth and the human brain is incapable of achieving it.

Dr. Strayer has looked at the possible existence of “super-taskers” who possess the super human ability to process more than one task at a time. Some of Dr, Strayer’s findings in the search of the mythical:

“Supertaskers have a strikingly remarkable ability to successfully perform two attention-demanding tasks that over 97% of the population cannot perform without incurring substantial costs in performance.”

“Indeed, our studies over the last decade have found that a great many people have the belief that the laws of attention do not apply to them (e.g., they have seen other drivers who are impaired while multitasking, but they themselves are the exception to the rule). In fact, some readers may also be wondering whether they too are supertaskers; however, we suggest that the odds of this are against them.”

So, only a potential 3% of the population may fall into the category of a “supertasker”; while we mere humans comprise 97% of the rest of the population.

In 2010, the National Safety Council estimated that 28% of all accidents, including fatalities, on US highways are the result of drivers using cell phones. Further, it has been estimated that as many as 10% of all drivers during any daylight hour are involved in a cell phone conversation. If there are 125 million drivers on the roads daily, 12.5 million cell phone conversations occur. For each of those 12 million drivers there are a multitude of possible tasks they are trying to deal with in addition to driving, holding a cell phone, listening, talking and processing information in the conversation.

No computer is capable of keeping up with all the logical and objective tasks to which we demand our brains to pay attention. Add to all of these possible distractions, manual processing and brain processing that one thing with which no computer ever has manage – emotional distraction:

• You left the house after a fight with your wife (sub husband, girlfriend, boyfriend, etc…)
• You left the house after a fight with your kid.
• You left the house only to find the garage door opener did not work.
• You left the house only to remember you left your wallet.
• You are stuck in traffic that looks like it goes on forever.
• Someone just cut you off. Someone is tailgating you at 70 mph.
• You just lost a loved one to death.
• You are going through a divorce. You have financial problems.

Any one or combination of these any many other emotional distractions add to your inability to process information while tooling down the freeway at high speeds or negotiating bumper to bumper traffic.

So, give yourself a break and do not fall into the “I am a super tasker” trap. Be happy with being a regular human, with limited ability to process information.

Buckle up, turn the phone off, leave the coffee at home, and focus on propelling that 3000 pound car down the road in a safe and concentrated manner.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30SpScVCfAI&feature=related[/youtube]

If you have any doubts about the value of not texting or talking on a cell phone. If you can not conceive of the damage you might cause, watch this video illustrating the very personal costs. Beware; it is not for the faint of heart.