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....

The delivering of false scientific information

The progress of science, by its very nature, requires cooperation.  Ideas are built upon.  One group of researchers makes a discovery and ten new groups of researchers push that discovery in new directions with diverse experiments centered around their own particular field of expertise.  Thats how it works.
There are, however, flaws to this approach.
At my current facility, Postdoctoral fellows are required to present their research at least once each year to the gathered body of scientists.  Everyone attends these talks eager to learn something new and to find out how the Postdocs are faring in their studies.
In a conversation with one of the Postdocs, the following was revealed:  often, the findings reported at this meetings are false. 
Postdocs have to publish novel scientific findings, the more novel the better.  They remain poor and at the bottom of the research totem pole until they do.  The fear among these junior scientists is that if they present their real data and observations there is a chance that someone in the audience, might take that data, replicate it, and publish it first.  In order to keep that from happening, many of the postdocs fabricate data.  This throws off other investigators who are on the same track and protects them from being beaten to the journal of their choice with their findings.
I am going to recommend soon that we only allow Postdocs to present who have completed research studies.  I'm not a fan of being lied to.

Article criticizing the NCI's grant funding policies

This is an article from a couple of years ago by Gina Kolata of the NY times. It brings up some interesting points about the grant system.  In the book I go into the fact that senior researchers are most likely to get grant money past the statistical peak of their careers.  A lot of prominent scientists will also complete scientific studies and then write grants for them.  The NY Times article brings up the fact that grant committees would much rather fund a simpler project that has a small pay off rather than fund a risky project that might have a huge payoff.

More government waste: permanent scientific contractors

I'm starting to feel like I'm running out of ideas, since many of these posts are updates on things that I already put down in my book.  Anyway, I mentioned in the book that government labs love to use permanent contractors as labor.  The cause of this is purely political, no President wants to say that the NIH, NCI, or whatever increased in size under their watch.  Unfortunately, the demands on these facilities continues to increase.
This is where government contracting organizations come in.  These private companies find research staff and place them in the new positions.  These jobs are attractive to scientists because they pay a little better and they are easier to find due to the fact that you don't have to navigate the worst website ever constructed, the USAJOBS page.  The politicians who run the government facilities love these employees because they can say that their facility has increased output without hiring any government employees.  And the contracting companies love to fill these positions because they can charge more than twice the actual contract employee's salary for each position they fill.
To make this clearer, if a government Postdoctoral researcher makes about $40,000/year, the same researcher could actually make about $45,000 if she worked for a contract company.  The contract company will then charge the lab $100,000 for her services.  It works out for everybody, particularly the private company that gets to pocket $55,000 for simply being in the right place at the right time.  The only people that get screwed are the taxpayers and the people who think, for some strange reason, that the money might be spent better on having 2 postdoctoral cancer researchers....
Here is a recent article from Forbes regarding this phenomenon.

Who makes more money? A cancer researcher or a McDonald's Fry Cook?

Here is a question:  If we care so much about curing cancer -- if our goal, as a society is to really eradicate this disease, what would we pay for people to work on the cure?  I cover the salaries of most levels of scientific researchers in my book, but I feel like I could do a better job of driving this point home.

What does a graduate student researcher doing cancer research make a year?  It varies from college to college, but I know of grad students currently making $17,000 a year.  As I mentioned in my book the HIGHEST salary I've ever heard of was about $26,000, and that is here in D.C.

A postdoctoral researcher salary is easier to define.  A first level postdoc receiving NIH funding is supposed to make $37,000/year.  Yep.  After 8 to 12 years of college, and the loans that are accrued during this time, Dr. So and So will make $37,000 as long as his or her boss doesn't find one of the many loop holes available to actually pay less.

Lets do the math.  Lets assume a graduate researcher who is working on a new chemotherapy drug for her dissertation does make $26,000/year.  If we assume she works 40 hours per week 52 weeks a year, she makes roughly $12.50/hour.

The postdoc at $37,000 makes around $17.75/hour for 40 hours.

Recently, I have met a few graduate students and postdocs who did get to work 40 hours a week.  It was clear from the amount of work they had produced that they will not make it in the field.  They will soon be replaced by more motivated scientists.  

Lets go back to the salaries.  Based on what I saw at the State University where I did my graduate work and the top tier research institution where I did my first postdoctoral fellowship, I think it is fair to say the average scientist at this level in their career puts in about 60 hours of actual research time.

At 60 hours/week, the graduate student makes $8.65/hour and the postdoc makes about $11.85/hour.

Back to the question in the title of this post.  Who makes more money, the McDonald's employee or the cancer researcher?  According to Glassdoor.Com a Fry Cook at McDonald's makes $8.25/hour, but an employee at McDonald's is eligible for overtime pay at 1.5 times the normal rate of pay.  While the base rate of pay for the McDonald's employee at 40 hours/week is $17,200/year, at 60 hours/week, the fry cook would make $25,780/year.

Conclusion:  The graduate student doing cancer research would make roughly the same amount of money as the fry cook at McDonald's.  The postdoctoral fellow would make considerably more after her 8 to 12 years of college.

Footnote:  As mentioned in my book, when I completed my Ph.D., I made $16,000/year.  My first postdoctoral advisor used one of the many loopholes in the system to pay me $25,000 the final year of my fellowship (2009).  So while my examples made more than the fry cook, I did not.