To the general public, the trial-and-error process of science and medicine may erode confidence, but without it, we’d have no science and medicine at all.
Unfortunately, scientific publishing is riddled with myriad problems, many of which likely can’t be solved without completely rethinking current processes and the underlying research culture. However, there are still small, short-term changes that are relatively easy to implement and can yield meaningful improvements in research integrity.
This past July, a news article published in Science sent shockwaves through the scientific community when it reported that one of the most influential and frequently-cited publications in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) research was evidently based on fraud.
“A calorie is a calorie” seems like a simple and obvious statement. But do different macronutrients vary in their ability to drive obesity? A recent study by Dr. Kevin Hall and colleagues provides new clues – and likely new fodder for debate.
For vitamin D supplementation to have any effect relative to placebo, it needs to be increasing the body’s supply of vitamin D, and if it doesn’t, then the treatment and placebo groups are effectively identical. So did the researchers achieve a difference in vitamin D levels over the course of the study?
A recent study explored whether supplementation with the beneficial compounds in cocoa could have a clinically-relevant effect on ASCVD.
“Remission in every patient” reads the New York Times headline about a study published earlier this month in the New…
PedalMe, a London-based e-bike company, recently announced that their employees were not allowed to wear bike helmets for safety reasons. Does their rationale have any merit?