The first comment is so on target. It's what we are seeing now from some academics in the stem cell field.
“Waste is more than just a waste of money and resources,” said Bracken. “It can actually be harmful to people’s health.”:
It's so true! Moreover, it erodes morality of the researchers. When money and power become a goal, science is down the drain.


Laboratory Equipment
07/06/2016 by Seth Augenstein, Digital Reporter,

http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/n...%%26type%3dcta


You’ve seen the studies, where cancer is all but cured in mice, and others showing “links” between vitamins and extreme longevity. Coffee alone has been proven to be a killer and a life-saver in a see-saw of conflicting studies. But the claims quickly fade when the results can’t be reproduced just as they were in that first lab.

A growing contingent of scientists are saying that biomedical research is wasteful – and needs to be reined in by new protocols to establish that only the strongest links are fostered. The latest academic to throw his hat in the ring is Michael Bracken, a Yale epidemiologist, who blasted scientific “waste” in a speech at the National Institutes of Health last week.

An estimated 87.5 percent of biomedical research is wasteful and inefficient, Bracken told the crowd at Masur Auditorium, as he called for an overhaul in oversight in the academic system.

“Waste is more than just a waste of money and resources,” said Bracken. “It can actually be harmful to people’s health.”

Only 12.5 percent of research projects are worthwhile, the Yale doctor contended during his lecture. Half of all projects lead to published findings, and only half of those are free of design flaws. Of the remaining 25 percent, half are redundant or unnecessary, he concluded.

Bracken’s estimate is similar to recent investigations in the British journal The Lancet. Eighty-five percent of all money invested in biomedical research is wasted, a series of five articles in the journal contended in 2014. If true, that amounts to $200 billion of the $240 billion invested in 2010 – a total that has only grown over the last several years.

READ MORE: Animal Experiments Don't Use Safeguards Against Bias, Says Study http://www.dddmag.com/news/2015/10/a...hsfp=498850833

The five Lancet pieces produced 17 recommendations to funders, regulators, journals, academic institutions and researchers themselves. A follow-up published in the journal last September contended that the discussion has since started a slow change in priorities at many academic institutions.

Bracken made many of the same recommendations, including systematic reviews of publications (he claims only 400 systematic reviews are published for every 10,000 publications on human clinical studies – with the number even lower for animal studies).

“There is never any justification for the use of animals or humans in poorly designed studies,” said Bracken.

Other studies have pointed to the lack of accountability in animal research. Almost no animal studies use research safeguards – and the vast majority of them have inherent bias in their results, a team of United Kingdom-based researchers reported in a massive meta-analysis in PLOS Biology last fall.

Comments:
The_Missing_Piece
Thanks for a great insight!
“Waste is more than just a waste of money and resources,” said Bracken. “It can actually be harmful to people’s health.”:
It's so true! Moreover, it erodes morality of the researchers. When money and power become a goal, science is down the drain.