Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Jan 27;19(1):4.
doi: 10.1186/s12910-018-0243-z.

Fake facts and alternative truths in medical research

Affiliations

Fake facts and alternative truths in medical research

Bjørn Hofmann. BMC Med Ethics. .

Abstract

Background: Fake news and alternative facts have become commonplace in these so-called "post-factual times." What about medical research - are scientific facts fake as well? Many recent disclosures have fueled the claim that scientific facts are suspect and that science is in crisis. Scientists appear to engage in facting interests instead of revealing interesting facts. This can be observed in terms of what has been called polarised research, where some researchers continuously publish positive results while others publish negative results on the same issue - even when based on the same data. In order to identify and address this challenge, the objective of this study is to investigate how polarised research produce "polarised facts." Mammography screening for breast cancer is applied as an example.

Main body: The main benefit with mammography screening is the reduced breast cancer mortality, while the main harm is overdiagnosis and subsequent overtreatment. Accordingly, the Overdiagnosis to Mortality Reduction Ratio (OMRR) is an estimate of the risk-benefit-ratio for mammography screening. As there are intense interests involved as well as strong opinions in debates on mammography screening, one could expect polarisation in published results on OMRR. A literature search identifies 8 studies publishing results for OMRR and reveals that OMRR varies 25-fold, from 0.4 to 10. Two experts in polarised research were asked to rank the attitudes of the corresponding authors to mammography screening of the identified publications. The results show a strong correlation between the OMRR and the authors' attitudes to screening (R = 0.9).

Conclusion: Mammography screening for breast cancer appears as an exemplary field of strongly polarised research. This is but one example of how scientists' strong professional interests can polarise research. Instead of revealing interesting facts researchers may come to fact interests. In order to avoid this and sustain trust in science, researchers should disclose professional and not only financial interests when submitting and publishing research.

Keywords: Breast cancer; Conflict of interest; Mammography screening; Mortality; Overdiagnosis; Polarized research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All named contributors provided written consent to participate in the study.

Consent for publication

All authors consented to having their data (their opinion on screening) published.

Competing interests

I have no conflict of interest to declare.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Scatter plot of the relationship between OMRR and attitudes to screening. (1: Very negative to screening, 2: Negative to screening, 3: Neutral to screening, 4: Positive to screening, 5: Very positive to screening)

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2(8):e124. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10(9):712. doi: 10.1038/nrd3439-c1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Begley CG, Ioannidis JP. Reproducibility in science. Circ Res. 2015;116(1):116–126. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.114.303819. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Begley CG. Reproducibility: six red flags for suspect work. Nature. 2013;497(7450):433–434. doi: 10.1038/497433a. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mobley A, Linder SK, Braeuer R, Ellis LM, Zwelling L. A survey on data reproducibility in cancer research provides insights into our limited ability to translate findings from the laboratory to the clinic. PLoS One. 2013;8(5):e63221. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063221. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms