Talk:Medical research

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Ultimate Evidence based Ayurvedic Diagnostic Solution Electro-tridosha-graphy[edit]

See Ayurveda

Criticism of Clinical Trials[edit]

This section needs to move toward a more neutral POV. Right now it looks like something Peter Rost and the editors of the British Medical Journal would write. (both are anti-industry). PhRMA would paint a completely different picture (with its distortions). We might talk about lack of completely independent researchers (examples like the Cleveland Clinic's ethical challenges in 2005-2006 might be good to look at), bias in trials (the JAMA article would need a better citation), but also the fact that many people with HIV and cancer would be willing to have access to products in clinical testing but the system has not been setup for this to be advantageous for approval for the companies. I can elaborate on this further.

There is not an alignment of goals between the actors in the scene (patients-Companies-FDA safety) or sometimes the alignment of goals (doctor-drug company-rewards) may appear to be in conflict with another goal (best choice for the patient). If we reframe the discussion to talk about goal alignment and risks, we can present all sides of the criticism. --Chrispounds 05:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Find your comments about the BMJ odd because the very reason I bother to read it every week is just because it is not afraid to give both side of the issue (have you considered how long the editor of PhRMA would keep his job if he upset the sources of all that advertising revenue?). Indeed the online version of the BMJ has the added advantage of the Rapid Responses section -where biases in articles are quickly highlighted. Obviously, it is not possible to sum it up in a nutshell but I would have said: that it is not so much anti-industry as pointing out poorly designed trials and very often their short duration. Especially when in real world proscribing, the treatment would be continued for longer.
I agree with you that there are many short comings in the present system and China might find that they can over take us by allowing certain groups of patients to enter highly speculative trials. Especially, since many sufferers of certain illnesses will expend considerable effort and display great ingenuity in finding a way to trying out some of these treatments - regardless of the law. Also, I don't like the way that political dogma holds back research into potentially useful drugs just because their sole use now is of an illegal nature i.e. Psilocybin, LSD, cannabis etc.
I see a big problem with your suggestion though.
Here in the UK we recently had a complete reorganization of our drug regulatory authority when it became too obvious that they were showing too much complaisance to the pharmaceutical industry. Doctors in America are also aware that the FDA badly needs sorting out for the same reason. So, just on this point alone, there is a big hole were both FDA 'public relations' and industry 'marketing' rhetoric can get in to explain and distort what the FDA's goals are -or are suppose to be- i.e.., protecting the public or protecting the industry. I won't go on here, as this has been done to death else where over resent years, but this is the danger when one starts to sprinkle the vocabulary with terms like -'goals'- 'partnership'- 'best choice'- 'mutual benefit'- 'win win situation'- etc. Why this situation exists is because those who should be able to improve things are unaware of the power of cognitive dissonance caused by working in or in partnership with the industry, thus causing them to suffer confirmation bias to a degree that they misjudge - even when they are made aware of it. However, now you have gotten me to thinking about it:- It would be clearer to have say a diagram showing the various routes from discovery of an 'effect,' and then the search to find some complaint that it might be used to treat, then all the regulatory hoops one needs to jump through in order to get product a license, and of course post marketing surveillance and product recalls and or license cancellation. Not forgetting the search to widen the scope of the license to include more 'indications' for treatment. This would be a hell of a lot easier to take in and understand than any textual explanation of the process. A similar diagram might be possible for medical devices (but perhaps there might be differences with in vivo types as against MRI scanners and the like), and another for radiological tagging and then there is blue sky 'medical research' so on. It is still a very undeveloped article for what is a very lage field. BUT You will be sowing the seeds for an edit war by going down the road that introduces an attempt at explaining the psychology of satisfying (or exploiting fairly or unfairly) human need - which will also include (in some cases) creating need where no exist. It would invite other editors to include the 'rose colored' prose -or rhetoric- of the pharmaceutical industry as a substitute for the reality. Your approach -I would have said- is really more suited to an article on how to form public opinion. Edward Bernays was a proponent for lining things up like this; in fact - he invented it. How good are you at drafting diagrams instead? P.S. Can you start new topic on talk pages at the bottom of the page so that they are easier to archive when the pages grow too big.--Aspro 13:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Mmm... I hope you realise that when you post enormous messages like that, few will read them...--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • [[Hyperactivity] ask for [[Ritalin] --Aspro 22:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
BMJ has better balance than I give it credit for. The current issue has a nice article that addresses some of the challenges of the research method. I do not want this article to turn into a treatise on logic, but rather would like us to have a neutral point of view. The industry side would say that the FDA is paranoid, but given the setting of the post-Vioxx debacle, that may be where public and political sentiment would like to have us go. I do love drafting diagrams, as long as they are not pie charts. Sorry for posting this 1 up from the bottom of the page. --Chrispounds 16:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Then we need to find some common ground to take this forwards (although this probable will have to wait for 2-3- weeks).
Vioxx a good example of opportunities lost. Many people found it alone freed them from pain to enjoy a better quality of life than any non-opioid. It was the discovery of evidence of holding back data that planted the seed of the emotional backlash and a knee jerk withdrawal. It needn't have been a problem handled properly. Here in the UK our 'British National Formulary' states that its OK to prescribe even oral morphine for 'distressing cough' under special circumstances -Vioxx (one can presume) could have been given extra proscribing guidelines that agreed with the growing 'improvement' in estimating its Benefit to Risk Ratio. Instead, there are possibly (in total around the world) many hundreds of thousands that are now denied an 'effective' pain control drug. Clozapine was was very effective but withdrawn by its manufacturer due to problems; but doctors managed to persuade them to reintroduce it by working out a protocol: restricting it to only patients that fulfill certain criteria and with a schedule of blood tests, and not before informing all concerned of the signs that would indicate the medical intervention is urgently require. Thalidomide is another very effective drug but the behavior of the manufactures when the problems stated to surface though to final judicial judgments, put everyone off it. In all of these examples it has not been from within the respective department of applied science that took this action but from without; in other words they were business decisions. Thus this detailed info would not belong in an article such as this. ( When your science teacher introduced you to the importance of not allowing separate classes to mix they might have mentioned Francis_Bacon, would perhaps say that the above examples falls into idola fori and idola theatri.
I live in an area where there exist several large pharmaceutical R&D divisions. The scientists there would not think of using words like paranoid etc. It is the PR personnel or outside promotion agents and FDA spokespeople who search their copies of Roget's Thesaurus to create spin with completely different connotations of fact, and call each other names. They (along with some journalists) are the source of many a misunderstanding arising in the mind of the pubic and their elected politicians. Again, this behavior is 'outside' the actual science. To see what I mean about weighing issues evenly is difficult (because the pivot its self, is being moved off center) One need only look at the worst branch of pharmaceutical medicine which with out doubt (I would say) is psychiatric meds. [1]
The article simply points out that pivot of judgment is off center and leaves the other articles (should they choose) to explain in detail. What is needed is more information on what actually happens acroos all related fields. For instance most 'break throughs ' in the last century have been result of taxpayer funded research. It is only when a there is enough knowledge to see a way though to a practical product that it gets taken up by a company. MRI scans and most other things only became releasable due to this blue sky research. Only by pure research into understanding acid regulation and the chemical compounds used to explores it, that a commercial company took the financial risk to see if they could get it licensed (as an h2 blocker). Same for the first antibiotics etc., etc., etc. It is the non-commercial side that is badly lacking and needs to be balance out the commercially driven side. What is not needed here (or in any other article of this type) is contagion from other 'idola'. --Aspro 15:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Biomedical research?[edit]

The biomedical research and this page appear closely inter-related: so much so that it is tempting to consider a merger. The second paragraph of the biomedical research page, at least, seems suitable for presentation on this article. That would bring in the animal research article into the text, and human experimentation could be readily inserted. — RJH (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It might look this way because non-biomedical research is -at present- poorly covered in this article. What about all the research into new dental fillings, artificial joints, plastic testicles, hearing aids, stints, splints, sutures, robot aided surgery, keyhole surgery, hypothermic surgery, and the list goes on and on and on. Feel free to reading though a few trade magazines and expand the article. If it starts getting too big, that would be the time to split into separate sub categories.--Aspro 18:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is currently titled as Biomedical research, while Medical research is a redirect to this article, however the content of the article more closely relates to medicine in general as opposed to its subset biomedicine, so the 'bio' prefix would be imprecise and misleading, in contravention to WP:PRECISION. Also, to observe WP:COMMONAME, while 'biomedical' and 'medical' are commonly and mistakenly used interchangeably in popular usage due to the difficulty in drawing the line between medical research that is non-biomedical and research that is biomedical, 'medical research' is still the more commonly-used phrase in relation to such topics that could arguably qualify as both. Therefore, I propose a renaming of the article to Medical research. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 09:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. Lead needs to be clarified though. Yet another article where the talk page is longer than the article (12k vs. 8k). (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support as well, but only on the condition that the difference between medical and biomedical research be explained in this talk page section. II | (t - c) 06:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Theory and animal experiments[edit]

"Preclinical research is research in basic science, which precedes the clinical trials, and is almost purely based on theory and animal experiments."

Isn't some sort of citation needed for this ? --InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Flaws and vulnerabilities[edit]

The source cited in the section also contains recommendations for improvement/ mitigation/ amelioration of the flaws and vulnerabilities. I ran out of the time I budgeted for myself to edit Wikipedia today. It would be helpful if a member of the community would like to incorporate some of the suggested recommendations into the article to help further improve the article. Thanks and regards, IjonTichy (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to merge with health sciences[edit]

In my view, there is no meaningful distinction between the concept of Medical research outlined on this page and the concept outlined by the classifications on the Health sciences page. Rather, the two pages have come at the same subject from different directions - one is a narrative, the other a classification. Merging them would eliminate confusion and lead to a single page that was significantly stronger than either is currently.

Willbown (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Willbown Medical research is only a small part of health sciences. Health science includes things like medical practice, which is often unrelated to any research. This page could be more clear but there is difference. What more could be said? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
In the history, the health science article used to be more than a list, but it seems it was decided to move all content there elsewhere. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Bluerasberry I don't think you are right to say that "Health science includes things like medical practice". If we are including medical practice pure and simple, then really we are talking about medicine itself, which is handled on the Medicine page.
Looking at the Health sciences page, I sort of understand where you are coming from. It says Health sciences is all about "the application of science to health". But no reference is cited. And if you look at the Wikipedia pages that the links refer to, all the ones I have looked at start off with text like this: "Clinical immunology is the study of diseases caused..." In other words, they are pages describing fields of research, not areas of clinical practice. So I think the one bit of narrative text on the page does not correspond to the actual content of the page.
If the phrase "Health science" means anything, it means the study of health and illness. Now, this may include studying the ways in which medicine as a profession is practised; but this is itself part of medical research.
Willbown (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
One more point. A possible source of confusion in this is that within the UK "health care scientist" has a specific meaning denoting a range of careers within the National Health Service, which in the past would often have been called "technician" or similar. These jobs are indeed applying science to practical tasks, but are not related to the substantive content of the Health sciences page.

By contrast, look at this NIH job ad for a Health Science Administrator, which you will see is all about research - Willbown (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Willbown You are correct that the terms "health science" and "medical research" are used interchangeably. However, imagine a nameless ideal concept of all kinds of health studies, and a nameless ideal concept of just research. The article currently called medical research, which could have any name at all, contains content only about medical research and not the entirety of the health sciences. The health sciences article lists every professional interest in health.
The difference is like that between study and practice of engineering, physics, computer science, law, or any number of other professional disciplines. The research in a field is often very separated from the professional practice of an art.
Propose to change the article names as you like but these are distinct concepts. I personally do medical research. I do not have a healthcare practice. Medical research is part of health science. Health science is not only medical research. the term "health science", as you say, may not mean anything, but the concept could be explained and defined. You are right that sources are not establishing any of this. I am not sure what to say. I wish someone would add sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Bluerasberry. I am now withdrawing my proposal. Instead, I am making a different change.
As you say, the Health sciences page lists professional specialisms in health. However, it does not list all of them, not by a long way. Most obviously, it doesn't include the specialisms for which you need to be a qualified doctor. In other words, it describes a range of support roles.
So I have just reworked the Health sciences page to clarify this aspect, and am now trying to move it to "Healthcare scientist". I was trying to record that here but ran into an editing conflict. Willbown (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)