Skip to main content

Bias and spin in reporting trials of new drugs for breast cancer

A paper published this week in the Annals of Oncology has demonstrated bias in the reporting of  outcome and toxicity of phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RTCs) for breast cancer. These trials are the final stage of testing of the efficacy and toxicity of a new drug or treatment before approval by regulatory agencies.

Papers published in scientific and medical journals have an abstract, a summary of the findings, and it is in this that the results are often presented in a biased way. Of the reports of 164 trials they reviewed, 33% of them showed bias in the reporting of the primary end point (PE) and as many as 67% in reporting the toxicity. Bias in reporting of outcome is common for studies with negative PEs.  Reporting of toxicity is poor, especially for the studies with positive PEs. It isn't that the authors don't give the correct result in the body of the report. The problem is that they put a 'spin' on them.    It is shocking but perhaps the finding is not surprising.

It is often argued that science is 'ethically neutral'. I have never subscribed to such a view. There isn't an ideal position of neutrality;somewhere from which we can see things free from assumptions or even prejudice. There is always a view from somewhere; a perspective that influences the way in which we see or interpret apparently objective data. In short there isn't a view from nowhere.

Science tests ideas, usually by first framing them into clearly testable hypotheses. What this tells us is that science is a human activity, it isn't a body of knowledge existing in some rarefied library. As soon as we touch it we frame it. We bring it into our world view.  It is also the case that science rarely if ever produces definitive answers. For all studies there are caveats; it might be difficult to control or account for all possible variables. This always provides leeway in interpretation of results and it is here that bias and spin are often in play.

Emphasising the positive over the negative in results is a judgement. In the case of Phase 3 human trials such judgement can have significantly harmful consequences. Ethical science isn't simply a matter of 'getting the right result' or the 'result right'. Ethical science should always be alert to its vulnerabilities. It has motive, it involves perspective and decision. Where there are choices there must always be ethical consideration. Scientists should consider the consequences of any bias they may introduce into their reports.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba