On ideals of objectivity, judgments, and bias in medical research – A comment on Stegenga

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C :Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences

Volumn 62, Issue , 2017, Pages 35-41

  Jukola, Saana ^a,b  

^a BIELEFELD UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG   (South Africa)

Author keywords

Bias; Medical research; Meta analysis; Objectivity

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PROCEDURES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SOCIOLOGY; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL BIAS;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; KNOWLEDGE; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; SOCIOLOGY;

EID: 85011835483     PISSN: 13698486     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2017.02.001     Document Type: Note

References (38)

1. Begg, C.B., Berlin, J.A., Publication bias: A problem in interpreting medical data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society) 151:3 (1988), 419–463.
2. Ben-Shakhar, G., Sinai, Y., Gender differences in multiple-choice tests: the role of differential guessing tendencies. Journal of Educational Measurement 28:1 (1991), 23–35.
3. Biddle, J., Lessons from the vioxx Debacle: What the privatization of science can teach us about social epistemology. Social Epistemology 21:1 (2007), 21–39.
4. Bloor, D., Wittgenstein, rules, and institutions. 1997, Routledge, London.
5. Broadbent, A., Philosophy of epidemiology. 2013, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
6. Broadbent, A., Is stability a stable category in medical epistemology?. Angewandte Philosophie 2:1 (2015), 24–37.
7. Brown, M., Values in science beyond underdetermination and inductive risk. Philosophy of Science 80:5 (2013), 829–839.
8. Carrier, M., Research under Pressure: Methodological features of commercialized science. Radder, H., (eds.) The commodification of academic research, 2010, Pittsburgh University Press, Pittsburgh, 158–186.
9. Daston, L., Galison, P., Objectivity. 2007, Zone Books, New York.
10. Douglas, H., Inductive risk and values in science. Philosophy of Science 67 (2000), 559–579.
11. Douglas, H., The irreducible complexity of objectivity. Synthese 138 (2004), 453–473.
12. Douglas, H., Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. 2009, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.
13. Fergusson, D., Doucette, S., Cranley Glass, K., Shapiro, S., Healy, D., Hebert, P., et al. Association between suicide attempts and selective serotonin reuptake Inhibitors: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal 330 (2005), 396–402.
14. Frey, B., Publishing as Prostitution? Choosing between One's own ideas and academic success. Public Choice 116 (2003), 205–223.
15. Hacking, I., Let's not talk about objectivity. Padovani, F., Richardson, A., Tsou, J., (eds.) Objectivity in science. New perspectives from science and technology studies, 2015, Springer, Dordrecht, 19–33.
16. Howick, J., Philosophy of evidence-based medicine. 2011, BMJ Books/Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.
17. Ioannidis, J., Why most published research findings are false. PloS Medicine 2:8 (2005), e069–0701.
18. Jukola, S., On the Conditions for Objectivity. (Doctoral dissertation), 2015, Jyväskylä University Printing House, Jyväskylä.
19. Kitcher, P., The advancement of science. Science without legend, objectivity without illusion. 1993, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
20. Kripke, S., Wittgenstein on rules and private Language: An elementary exposition. 1982, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
21. Lee, C., Sugimoto, C., Zhang, U., Cronin, B., Bias in peer review. Advances in information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64:1 (2013), 2–17.
22. Longino, H., Science as social knowledge. 1990, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
23. Lundh, A., Sismondo, S., Lexchin, J., Busuioc, O., Bero, L., Industry-sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 12, 2012, 10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub2.
24. Osimani, B., Until RCT Proven? On the asymmetry of evidence requirements for risk assessment. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 19 (2013), 454–462.
25. Pigott, H.E., Leventhal, A., Alter, G., Boren, J., Efficacy and effectiveness of Antidepressants: Current status of research. Psychotherapy & Psychosomatics 79 (2010), 267–279.
26. Poland, G., Jacobson, R., The age-old struggle against antivaccinationists. The New England Journal of Medicine 364:2 (2011), 97–99.
27. Porter, T., Trust in numbers. The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. 1997, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
28. Reiss, J., Kitcher, P., Biomedical research, neglected disease, and well-ordered science. Theoria 66 (2009), 263–282.
29. Sismondo, S., How pharmaceutical industry funding affects trial outcomes: Causal structures and responses. Social Science & Medicine 66:9 (2008), 1909–1914.
30. Sismondo, S., Pharmaceutical company funding and its consequences. A qualitative systematic review. Contemporary Clinical Trials 29 (2008), 109–113.
31. Sismondo, S., Doucet, M., Publication ethics and the ghost management of medical publications. Bioethics 24:6 (2010), 273–283.
32. Stegenga, J., Is meta-analysis the platinum standard of evidence?. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 42 (2011), 497–507.
33. Stegenga, J., Measuring effectiveness. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 54 (2015), 62–71.
34. Tabery, J., Beyond versus. The struggle to understand the interaction of nature and nurture. 2014, MIT Press, Cambridge.
35. Vandenbroucke, J., Psaty, B., Benefits and risks of drug treatments. How to combine the best evidence on benefits with the best data about adverse effects. JAMA 300:20 (2006), 2417–2419.
36. Wilholt, T., Bias and values in scientific research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40 (2009), 92–101.
37. Wilholt, T., Epistemic trust in science. The British Journal for the Philosophy of the Science 64:2 (2013), 233–253.
38. Ziman, J., Real science. What it is and what it means. 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.