Rigorous scientists stabilized a patient’s macular degeneration with a cutting-edge stem cell treatment; less rigorous scientists misapplied stem cell science and left three women blind.
What happened this week? Measles returns to kill. Stem cell injections blind. Lousy acupuncture studies. Fire hot. Skinny jeans are not a reason to see a chiropractor. Lesbian tendencies do not respond to homeopathy. And more.
Waiting for a vaccine-preventable infection. More lousy acupuncture studies. Medical students interested in homeopathy are not as strong at science. Water wet. TCPM consuming donkeys. What the FDA does, and doesn't do, for now.
There are many ways to apply the medical literature. For me it starts with the premise that health care workers may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
Donald Trump versus the FDA: Is the standard of evidence for drug approval actually too low rather than too high?
All of the candidates being considered by President Trump for FDA Commissioner believe that the FDA is too strict in its standards for approving new drugs. In a commentary in Nature last week, two bioethicists argued that, at least in terms of preclinical data, the standard of evidence is actually too low. Which is correct?
Last week, a review of the reproducibility of several highly cited cancer biology papers was published. The results were mixed and demonstrate how difficult reproducing published results can be at times—and how scientists need to do better.
A new PEW survey has been carried out regarding public attitudes toward genetically modified organisms (GMOs), organic food, and scientific consensus. While the numbers are better than I expected for science, they still indicate a large disconnect between scientific and public opinion on food matters. Scientists need to do better.