by: Jonathan Benson
vast majority of the published scientific literature on cancer and cancer
research is inherently flawed and non-reproducible, reveals a new review
published online in the journal Nature. Researchers C. Glenn Begley and
Lee Ellis found that a mere 11 percent of 53 papers on cancer published
in reputable, peer-reviewed journals was solid, while the other 89 percent
could not be reproduced, implying that it may be false or at the very least
studies are the basis upon which the scientific community at large determines
how best to develop treatments for disease, including potential new approaches
to treating cancer. But such studies, though sure to contain some minor
flaws from time to time, appear to be missing the boat in major ways on
a regular basis. And the end result of this intrinsic failure is a cancer
treatment system that is not only outdated but potentially completely misguided.
scientific community assumes that the claims in a preclinical study can
be taken at face value - that although there might be some errors in detail,
the main message of the paper can be relied on and the data will, for the
most part, stand the test of time," wrote the authors about their findings.
"Unfortunately, this is not always the case."
on a review of 53 published papers on cancer, Begley and Ellis discovered
that only six of them could be reproduced and confirmed in a clinical setting.
And the worst part was that the 53 papers were considered to be "landmark,"
which means they are generally recognized as having had a significant impact
on cancer research due to presenting some new cancer treatment approach
or novel therapy for targeting cancer cells.
looks like the scientific literature is contaminated with a growing number
of tainted studies, which may reach 89 percent, the results of which are
not reproducible by any means," writes Eleni Roumeliotou for GreenMedInfo.com
about the shocking findings. "This means that to an extent, we have
based our healthcare and clinical guidelines on fake studies that reported
untruthful results in order to accommodate the interests of industrial corporations."
cancer studies influenced by Big Pharma conflicts of interest
fact of the matter is that a considerable amount of published scientific
research is questionable at best due to influence from the pharmaceutical
industry. A similar but unrelated study that looked at research funding
found that at least 17 percent of published research papers in general were
conducted with serious conflicts of interest, which more often than not
stemmed from drug industry funding that steered the research in a pre-determined
the frequency we observed for conflicts of interest and the fact that conflicts
were associated with study outcomes, I would suggest that merely disclosing
conflicts is probably not enough," says Dr. Reshma Jagsi, M.D., author
of a University of Michigan (UM) study that found a considerable percentage
of cancer research to be tainted by conflicts of interest. "It's becoming
increasingly clear that we need to look more at how we can disentangle cancer
research from industry ties."
for this article include: