Weekend reads: Misbehaving medical academics; are phase I trials ethical?; the “sin” of mistakes

The week at Retraction Watch featured revelations about what happens when researchers unwittingly use a tool without permission, and a look at why women peer review less often than men. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post, or subscribe to our new daily digest. Click here to review our Comments Policy. For a sneak peek at what we’re working on, click here.

3 thoughts on “Weekend reads: Misbehaving medical academics; are phase I trials ethical?; the “sin” of mistakes”

  1. Dear Retraction Watch,
    I’m not sure why you included Ben Goldacre’s “Patients are dying from lack of good medical research” at the top of your weekend reads list. The article didn’t provide any insight into either pharma company or academic research issues for shutting down trials or bad data or his euphemistic “it’s a mess.” The only light shed on the realities of the dilemma was the sentence fragment “regulators over-interpret EU red tape on research.” Which was an over-simplistic partial thought. There was no actionable message or request. It was basically a gripe; I can read those on social media. There are PLENTY of articles and positions out there on the reasons that trials are abandoned (poor efficacy, unclear outcomes, PI trial violations, sloppy subject records, sanctioning, a new and better novel candidate, weak P-values, reviewer dissatisfaction, on and on). Please don’t waste my time with shallow puff pieces. I expect more from you all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.