Its most obvious in drug policy in the UK.
Science is a very difficult pursuit. Evidence-based science may not always be the best paradigm but it works the highest number of times and more often than not comes up with the right answer.
Good science looks to defeat bias, prejudice, ignorant supposition and current thinking all in the pursuit of the absolute truth. Of course it is simply not enough to have the evidence - correct interpretation is vital. But that's all part of the struggle to find this truth.
In physical sciences this dogged determination to find the truth is clear. It may be easier than for social and soft sciences but the paradigm can be taken and its use practised in the harder to measure subjects.
It isn't in drug research. For a start its the most biased research I can think of though psychosanalogical (looking at wellness) research in psychosis is probably up there.
There is little to none high quality psychosanalogical drug research published, i.e. none considering drugs as enthogeons. What that means is that there are no studies accept by politicians that show the potential of illegal drugs for mental health and life, though there is an immense body of work on the internet of personal experiences. These positive experiences would be shared by vast swathes of the population who take drugs regularly.
It is interesting that the psychiatric profession love psychopharmaceuticals for (supposed) psychopathology but vilify illegal psychopharmaceuticals that have been used for aeons and are used recreationally today. None of the pro-drugs research ever makes it to commissioners and politicians probably because it is low quality though possibly because they wouldn't read it even if it was high quality. They'd choose not to investigate the potential of MDMA for therapy and treatment even though it has helped many people. (another post later on the potential of Ecstacy for mental health treatment).
Bias is the great evil of high quality research though seemed to be accepted and somewhat promoted by qualitative social research. Bias is usually the greatest cause of mistruth when scientific methods are used. Its why the gold standard is the Randomised Control Trial because the bias of knowledge of trial group caused results that were incorrectly showing treatments like insulin-induced comas (and/or seizures) to be an effective high risk treatment over less risky treatments in post-WWII Britain. In fact the modern gold standard is the double-blind RCT and the blind quality is another attempt to remove human bias that skews the results and can inflate them.
Publication bias is revealed through meta-analysis techniques which look at published and unpublished data and map out the studies using a funnel plot. Publication bias will mean that a treatment will look more favourable through the funnel plot, for example antidepressant studies that show lack of effectiveness compared to the placebo effect won't be published by drug companies. Recent meta-analyses and reviews have identify the publication bias and have suggested their lack of efficacy. This means the idea that antidepressants work more than the placebo effect isn't true though lots of single, published, high quality studies show them to be more effective.
A funnel plot isn't needed for the drugs research to see the immense bias is psychiatric and other scientific literature. Its not surprising of course. The stigma of drug use by the 'establishment' or those who are in power is very strong and rooted in Western history. An example of what happens to research in this area is the famous Harvard Psilocybin Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Psilocybin_Project) in the 70's. The battle between enthogens and mental health is once against seen, and unlike the Bible story its David that looses to Goliath.
Those who become policy makers often forget their experience of drugs and drug takers. Many have had a toke and may have tried other drugs. Most people hide drug use like they'd hide hearing voices. As people get older they may continue to take drugs or they may stop, but when asked to say if drugs are good or bad they'll forget their personal experience and go with the socially acceptable argument based on those who end up addicted or in crime. The memory bias means they'll forget all the good times they've had, all the great experiences and all the fun because the socially acceptable view is of a junkie with a needle in their arm robbing a grandmother. Its almost like its unacceptable to tell the truth about enjoying drugs.
At heart the UK's policy makers love drugs. That's why there's a tax-free bar right at the centre of the House of Commons - Annie's bar if I remember correctly. I'm sure a large amount of UK policy across a number of areas is done while politicians sup on a drug. Its a legal one and an accepted one as is much of the social ill of alcohol. After all, taxation funds education and rehabilitation.
And a dissenting voice like Professor David Nutt who points out the obvious is silenced and removed from a position on the UK's scientific advisory committee, one that he'd held for many years.
So many dictators would be proud to see their way of working is still alive in 2010. Criticism, free thought and the fucking obvious pointed out when it is contrary to the party line should be silenced. Evidence is only to be used when it is convenient and ignored when it isn't.
What someone thinks is 'right' is more important than real truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment