Imagine that someone dear to you undergoes treatment for a chronic disease and it does not go the way it should have? How would you feel if later you would somehow found out, that this was due to the researcher(s) failing to report the negative effects observed in the clinical trials for that treatment. This usually starts with negligent under-reporting of the potential harms or intentional withholding of the treatment’s ill-effects. In 2010, a team of German researchers led by Natalie McGauran concluded that the phenomenon of reporting bias is “widespread in medical research.” Thus, misleading conclusions tend to be drawn from such research and regrettably, the treatments get approved. Now, imagine this affecting your loved one! Of course your heart would ache and you would pray that such researchers suffer the consequences of their wrongdoing! To prevent this from happening McGauran and her fellow researchers advocated that mandatory prospective registration of trials and public access to research databases be ensured on a worldwide scale.
When in a published clinical trial the researcher selectively reports a pre-specified set of outcomes i.e. only a subset of the actual outcomes measured and analysed in a study gets reported, what is happening is called ‘Outcome-reporting bias.’ Fortunately for us today, outcome-reporting bias is well-documented and strict protocols are being set in place to combat it, at least in medical research. Quite recently, a 20-year review of statistical reporting, has also found evidence for an increase in outcome-reporting bias, in the domains of management studies and applied psychology. It has become evident that researchers tend to take the infamous ‘short-cut’ to get their work published and to ‘get ahead,’ quite unfortunately at the cost of both, research ethics and integrity.
In November 2019, one of China’s most renowned scientists Cao Xuetao gave a grand address to lakhs of students on the topic of ‘research integrity.’ However, allegations of ‘data and image manipulations’ from within his own research work have also come to the forefront. He later pledged that he would look into it. In India too, the problem of scientific misconduct has been a deep-rooted one and the apex regulatory body for higher education in India, the University Grants Commission (UGC) is working to address it. In December 2019, the Commission’s Secretary Prof. Rajnish Jain, in a letter addressing the Vice Chancellors of all Universities, announced that UGC has approved a 2 Credit Course on ‘Research and Publication Ethics (RPE)’ which must be “made compulsory for all Ph.D. students for pre-registration course work.” The idea behind including the compulsory course at the beginning of the Ph.D. programme is to improve the overall quality of the research papers. Though these policy changes are not as fast paced as people would have liked, initiatives such as the Consortium for Academic and Research Ethics (CARE) list of Scientific Journals brought about by the UGC, clearly aim to oust misconduct from scientific research.
Prof. Aaron Carroll in an article for The New York Times writes about how bad science is the primary reason why over 10% of Americans are on ‘Antidepressants,’ most of which good solid research finds questionable in the context of efficient treatments. He writes that researchers should embrace reporting and publishing the negative findings in their research instead of only the positive findings in clinical trials. This is called ‘Publication Bias.’ Listing out the limitations of a study also helps in improving your standing as an ethical and respectable researcher. This would in turn prove to be of help in combating and reducing biases in any research work.
In an open and information-rich era supported by the Internet, it really is hard to ‘save face,’ if we, as a scientific community, falter and succumb to the slightest of misconduct. Scientists are after all, keen to avoid biases altogether, as it “threatens scientific ideals such as objectivity, transparency, and rationality.”
Bias can be defined as “any tendency which prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question.” Preventing bias in your research is more than asking the simple question, “Is a bias present or not?” It is about consciously taking necessary precautions, right from formulating your research question to publishing your findings.
If you are interested, there are many ways to avoid biases from affecting your research work:
First and foremost, find out what brings you to love research... Get to your ‘Why?’.
If it is just something to do, like the kind that ‘doing something is better than doing nothing,’ then give yourself the liberty of doing something you love for a change. Maybe research is not something you love and that is completely alright. How about taking a break, reassessing, and getting back to it, only if it really calls out to you.
Doing research because you want to get ahead in your career has its own limitations too, and you are very likely to submit biased or manipulated research work, simply to avoid getting fired or avoid letting that promotion slip by. The Milgram experiment showed us how, in the face of authority, we tend to fracture our own moral spine. It is, therefore, important to remember that integrity is not something that can be taught, it must come from within. Also, once you find integrity, you can channel it, so that it guides you on your research journey and beyond.
The next thing you could do is read up about biases.
Here is a great starting point - the comprehensive Catalogue of Biases. You will find it to be a storehouse of information that we as a scientific community can be mindful of. It is amazing that if we truly want to find out something (or research) in this ocean of abundant information, we will find it. Yes, you might find some misinformation occasionally, but that’s a discussion for another time!
If you really want to fall in love with research, but are anxious like many of us initially were, about using Statistical techniques in your research work - then consider taking our Research Methodology and Statistical Reasoning Course on Udemy where you will find meaning, context, structure, design and passion for pursuing research. Not to forget, keeping aside biases and misconduct of course!
If you have made it this far, that means research is something that definitely interests you. Do share your thoughts about what you just read, write them in the comment section below. If you wish to get updates directly to your inbox, don’t forget to subscribe to our blog.
Shrikanth Iyer
