The roadmap of research

Reading mental health research is hard work because there are few
truths. The trials using the highest standard of evidence are biased.
Even the meta-analytic technqiues high on the hierachy of evidece reveal
failures in bias. Few good truths seem to come out and much of the
research is still about averages, i.e. what will happen in general when
applying a treatment to a sample that represents the whole populations,
rather than how to predict what works for an individual.

What I feel is needed that doesn't exist as far as I am aware is a
roadmap of necessary research such that all treatments and techniques
are explored. At the moment there are very large numbers of studies on
pharmacotherapy and they're well funded so high quality. Psychological
therapies research has a long history but there's a dearth of high
quality studies that are required for commission and there are problems
with the outcome measures used when applied to more complex, less
directive treatments. Not only is there a need for high quality research
in all psychological therapies but in all forms of therapy, including
alternative and holisitic therapies. This broad range of therapies will
mean a long list of research required but it is necessary to truly show
that one treatment is of benefit.

All that still isn't enough because the research is about averages. Its
like knowing that if you toss a coin a hundred times it'll most likely
land heads up 50% of the time. That's useless for telling what'll happen
the next time however a much more advanced science like physics can
predict that. Based a few variables its possible to predict which way a
coin will land or a pancake will flip or to understand that toast really
does fall butter side down given standard sized pieces of toast falling
off standard tables. That's what's essential for providing effective
mental health treatments but is a way off in the future.

There's a lot of what seem like pointless studies while there's high
quality studies that desperately need doing. A roadmap, which is a term
from computer development, can organise the path of activity required
for progress and increase the focus of the general research movement
looking for truths in mental health and healthcare.

Its not that easy though. I've been reading a little on the Ig Noble
Awards for dumb science.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ig_Nobel_Prize
For instance, in 2006 a study showing that the malaria mosquito
</wiki/Mosquito> (/Anopheles gambiae/) is attracted equally to the smell
of Limburger cheese </wiki/Limburger_cheese> as it is to the smell of
human feet^[3] <#cite_note-2> earned the*Ig Nobel Prize* in the area of
biology. As a direct result of these findings this cheese has now been
placed in strategic locations in the nations of Africa to combat the
epidemic of malaria. The significant contribution this study
inadvertently made toward preserving human life arguably highlights the
importance of sharing sound experimental findings, irrespective of
intended uses of said findings.

So its possible for pointless research to do some good. No roadmap
should be so controlling that it doesn't allow for some experimental and
seemingly pointless research to be carried out. What's needed is some
modicum of direction more than currently exists and based on a better
understanding of epistomology than the current NICE dogma.