<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2716.2200" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT><FONT color=#000080>it's been my sad experience that the one who pays for research often calls the tune.   and the financial sponsor of research is seldom mentioned.     </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080>for example, for decades the sugar companies tried to get researchers to say that sugar is good for you.    they often paid for research but the researchers had integrity and found that sugar had no nutritious value and could be dangerous to people.   finally, after spending lots of money, the sugar companies found what they wanted: researchers who could be bought.    naturally, US society had to change into its currently dominant social darwinist form before the sugar companies hit pay dirt in the "scientific" community.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080>R</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080>from PR Watch:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080><FONT color=#000000>WHEN PEER REVIEW YIELDS UNSOUND SCIENCE</FONT></FONT></DIV><FONT color=#000080><FONT color=#000000> <DIV><BR></FONT><A href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/11/health/policy/11DOC.html?ex=1024815781&ei=1&en=bb8a3aca209fabf6">http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/11/health/policy/11DOC.html?ex=1024815781&ei=1&en=bb8a3aca209fabf6</A></DIV> <DIV><BR><FONT color=#000000>  As we report in our book Trust Us, We're Experts, 'peer review' is<BR>  a process "in which panels of experts are convened to pass<BR>  judgement on the work of other researchers. ... In theory, the<BR>  process of peer review offers protection against scientific errors<BR>  and bias. In reality, it has proven incapable of filtering out the<BR>  influence of governmental and corporate funders, whose biases often<BR>  affect research outcome." Lawrence K. Altman examined the issue in<BR>  the aftermath of a recent meeting and "the news was grim.<BR>  Researchers reported considerable evidence that many statistical<BR>  and methodological errors were common in published papers and that<BR>  authors often failed to discuss the limitations of their findings.<BR>  Even the press releases that journals issue to steer journalists to<BR>  report peer reviewed papers often exaggerate the perceived<BR>  importance of findings and fail to highlight important caveats and<BR>  conflicts of interest."</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000000><BR>SOURCE: New York Times, June 11, 2002<BR>More web links related to this story are available at:<BR></FONT><A href="http://www.prwatch.org/spin/June_2002.html#1023768000">http://www.prwatch.org/spin/June_2002.html#1023768000</A><BR></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>