Reproducing scientific studies

In my book, I spend a lot of time talking about the Bayer Reproducibility Study.  In this study, Bayer scientists were assigned papers describing important scientific discoveries and were challenged to try to reproduce the results of those experiments.  Most of the studies were found to be non-reproducible. As a follow-up to that startling work, another group recently decided to see how reproducible are studies that specifically deal with cancer.

Unfortunately, the results were even worse.  Dramatically worse.

Of the 53 studies they picked, 47 were not reproducible.   That is 89%.  Now, this is a small sample size.  And we don't know what the specific scientific backgrounds of the researchers who attempted to do replicate the experiments.  And I believe that after the results of the first study, there has to be some level of bias in the minds of the researcher.  I know that I am much more skeptical than I was before that study -- but 89%?  That figure is simply frightening.

As scientists, a big part of our job is keeping up on the newest progress in our field of study.  Most senior researchers spend several hours a day reading and being presented findings from other labs.  What if this is true?  Then the majority of information we're presented every day is not true?

If you've read my book, you know that I believe this is an inevitable result of how the cancer research system currently works.  I believe that so much pressure is placed on scientists in this field to publish that junior researchers would rather publish work that is shoddy, or outright false, in order to continue their careers.  To tell the truth, I am not surprised that cancer studies are less reproducible than scientific studies as a whole.  I am shocked to think that it might really be this bad.  You can read more about this work at Reuters.

Increased cancer rates in miners explored in new studies

It has been known for decades that coal miners have cancer rates significantly higher than the general population.  Many factors have been investigated including radon exposure, trace radioactivity, lack of natural sunlight, and on and on.  Two new studies in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute explore the link between the increased cancer rates and the exposure of miners to diesel exhaust.  They found that miners are exposed to incredibly high levels of diesel fuel exhaust compared to the general public and that this exposure can be linked to their risk of developing cancer.  If you'd like to read the papers, you can do so for $32 dollars a piece at this link.
Although your tax dollars support the government researchers who performed this study and the journal that published this study, you don't get access to this information unless you pay a ridiculous fee to access it.  Thats how the scientific literature works today.  You can read more about this study here.

The End of Illness

This recent Forbes article describes the new book, The End of Illness, by Dr. David Agus.  According to this article, one of the premises of this book is that we should stop trying to cure cancer and focus on simply preventing it.  The author has a list of good ideas that will, under some conditions, lower your chances of developing cancer.
There is a major fault with this premise:  sometimes cancer develops through no fault of your own at all.  While it is true that certain actions such as smoking or working with certain solvents increases your chance of developing cancer, sometimes you are simply born predisposed to developing the disease.  According to researchers at the MD Anderson Cancer Center, approximately 5-10% of cancers are hereditary -- you are born with a mutation that will make you much more likely to develop cancer than the average person.
So, while the advice from Dr. Agus is probably good, his tips for living would only be a small step in the right direction.
Even if his advice would prevent every person without the genetic predisposition for cancer from developing it, we would still have millions of cancer victims who could be helped by further research into the disease and how to eradicate it.

NCI-Frederick is now a support facility

It took a while to get a straight answer, but I finally got to the bottom of this.  The NCI-Frederick facility banned all investigator-initiated research in order to cut costs and to make the labs there solely support facilities.  The labs there are now being micromanaged by a few senior physicians at the main NCI campus.  I still believe that this is a complete travesty and a waste of hundreds of minds that could be actively assisting in the search for a cancer cure.
Fortunately, several of the most prestigious researchers at this facility have moved on and unfortunately I doubt that it will be long before NCI-F is a shell of the great haven for research that it once was.

NCI-Frederick information is confirmed

Today the information from my source was confirmed, NCI-Frederick no longer performs research that is not handed down to them by the politicians who operate the facility.

I want to put this in perspective a little:

NCI-Frederick has:

1) Over 100 principal investigators; proven, accomplished scientists

2) Over 500 M.D., Ph.D., level fellows eager to prove themselves as cancer researchers

3) Almost 4,000 support staff!!!!

These people are no joke.  There are graduates from Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Berkeley, Oxford, and every other good research institute in the country!

But if any one of these people comes up with a good idea -- a great idea -- such as a new cancer drug, they CAN NOT explore that idea.  

I have written various executives I know at the NCI to find out what the NCI-Frederick facility is now being used for and who is directing it.  I will post as soon as I know more.

NCI bans all investigator initiated research at Frederick facility

Today, a trusted source within the National Cancer Institute at Frederick confirmed what I had been hearing rumors about for months.  All investigators at NCI-Frederick have been told to halt ALL research projects that were not handed down by the NCI main facility.  What does this mean?  It means that the NCI has essentially stripped over 100 principal investigators of their ability to investigate the scientific phenomena that they see fit to investigate.  The minds of these 100 PIs, not to mention that of their hundreds of postdocs have been effectively taken out of the battle against cancer.  This is a sad day for everyone at NCI-Frederick, as well as everyone in the field of cancer research.

The careers website at NCI-Frederick still lists 51 openings for postdoctoral fellows!  As I explain in my book, a Ph.D. or M.D. takes a Postdoc position to develop their skills as a scientist.  In exchange for earning very little money, postdocs get to design their own experiments and eventually their own research projects.  It is completely unethical for a facility that does not allow investigator-initiated research to continue to hire postdocs. 

Government labs continue to withhold data from experiments performed at their facilities

If you have read my book, you know that one of my biggest complaints about government conducted research on cancer is the amount of time before this research is made public.
I recently had a conversation with yet another researcher who has waited years for his employer to allow him to publish his results.  These are the hurdles he must jump at his facility:
1.) Perform the research
2.) Submit the publication to his department head
3.) Remind his department head every few weeks that he has submitted research for his approval
4.) The department head picks 3 other department heads to give opinions on the work
5.) Two months later the opinions are returned to the researcher suggesting additional experiments.
6.) The frustrated researcher begins the process again.
7.) If the internal reviewers are satisfied, he can then submit his paper for the appropriate research journal (which must be externally reviewed).

I think the same thing is happening at this facility as at the one I once worked for.  The administrators are so concerned with the political ramifications of publishing research that is incorrect or unpopular that they would rather withhold the work until it is obsolete.
I continue to hear stories of how the same thing is happening at different branches of the government cancer research entity. It appears that the amount of cancer research that is sitting around at these facilities cost millions if not billions of dollars and they are being wasted by the corrupt politicians who head these laboratories.
I want some of my tax money back....