Bristol - New Network - Prof Munafo

Suggested changes in red:

One of the main reasons that third-rate research continues to prosper, most notably in the UK, is the lack of people willing to challenge it, especially if it means speaking out against the establishment view.

You are probably aware of the controversy surrounding the PACE trial: it doesn’t take a lot of training or experience...

...a reliance on subjective assessments in unblinded trials, and ignoring or downplaying objective assessments...

...(the hypotheses explicitly set out in the PACE trial)...

David Tuller produced a number of articles spelling out many of the problems. [Might be worth making it clear that these are journalistic articles, not articles in peer-review journals.]

The decision was made to exclude studies carried out by UK psychiatrists from consideration, due to poor quality and the use of overly loose selection criteria (Oxford).

I can only conclude that virtually no-one in the UK scientific community is prepared to stand up against the old-boy network: that the fear of creating waves far exceeds their belief in scientific values. [I'd cut this whole sentence.]

Are you going to speak out about the poor methodological and ethical quality of PACE trial, MAGENTA, FIT-NET, and SMILE? Already, in the USA, the PACE trial is being used in academic lectures as an example of how not to run a trial.

Or is this new network simply going to be an elite sub-group of the existing old boy network? [I'd probably cut that too.]
Click to expand...
 
Thanks both.

I can't remember which American body decided that the studies using the Oxford criteria were to be dropped. Help please - brain decaying.

@Sean : are you sure it is most notably UK research that is poor? I doubt if that is true.

I've more or less added all your suggestions, but I'd like to keep something that refers to the "fear" of speaking out that inhibits valid criticism. Any thoughts?
 
Graham said:
So here is version 3.
Click to expand...
Very good. Suggested edits:

(page 1) "the major problems in both the original study, or in the recovery paper". "or" should be "and".

"ME is the simply the result of fear and deconditioning (the hypotheses set out in the PACE trial)". 'hypotheses' should be 'hypothesis'.

(page 2) "have had dramatic effect" - should be "have had a dramatic effect"? Or maybe "have had dramatic effects"?
 
Last edited:
@Graham wrote:

I can't remember which American body decided that the studies using the Oxford criteria were to be dropped. Help please - brain decaying.
Click to expand...

AHRQ (Excellent, lucid summary of AHRQ process mess which fortunately reached the conclusion they should have drawn at the beginning. Excellent work by Spotila and Dimmock.)


http://occupyme.net/2016/08/16/ahrq-evidence-review-changes-its-conclusions/

More info on the P2P here:

https://prevention.nih.gov/sites/de...workshop/2018/PForP_Newsletter_Summer2018.pdf
 
I’ve been a bit slow to catch up here...I’ve now read all three versions . I think it’s all good @Graham apart from one sentence. As @Sean mentioned, I would take the old boys network sentence out ...I don’t think it needs spelling out.

When I was going through my poor performance disciplinary and discrimination/unfair dismissal tribunal at work it was always better to use phrases like “this is confusing” or “I’m not sure why that may be” rather than spelling out a speculation or reason for other people’s behaviour. You don’t have to speculate for them, although the reader can normally join up the dots and form their own conclusions without actually saying it?
 
I have received a quick but short reply, and it is pretty much as expected.

Dear Graham,

Thanks for your interest in the article!

I do know something about the PACE trial from Twitter, but not much more than that. I’ll read the briefing note you attached.

In general, I prefer to focus on broad issues rather than specific studies. This is partly to ensure that I don’t get mired in any particular debate, and partly because I think the root causes of problems of reproducibility lie in incentive structures and research cultures. Ultimately I think we need to change these if we’re going to improve scientific quality, and the scientific environment more generally.

For that reason, and because other people better qualified have already commented on these issues, I don’t think it would be helpful for me to contribute (and would take time I simply don’t have given the focus on setting up the network, putting in place training across the partner universities and so on). I hope you’ll understand!

All the best,

Marcus Munafò
Professor of Biological Psychology

MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit
UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies
School of Psychological Science
University of Bristol
12a Priory Road
BRISTOL BS8 1TU
United Kingdom
 
Nice reply, understandable under the circs, but I think you've contributed to the general consciousness-raising around this, which will be especially useful in Bristol University.

Interesting that he's come across the issues with PACE on Twitter. I always wonder how much of an echo-chamber we're in and it's good to know that some of it is getting out (although he doesn't say whose side he's read on Twitter!).
 
My initial thought is just to reply briefly, thanking him for his response, and just to point out that a reluctance to get involved in specific debates lies at the heart of the problem in the UK, and allows third-rate work to not only prosper, but to have influence.
 
Graham said:
My initial thought is just to reply briefly, thanking him for his response, and just to point out that a reluctance to get involved in specific debates lies at the heart of the problem in the UK, and allows third-rate work to not only prosper, but to have influence.
Click to expand...

You could do that, and it's a good point, but I doubt it will persuade him to take action. But how about asking him for advice about that? Given that we need people to stand up and be counted on PACE, how would he advise us to get them to do that? If he were a patient with this condition and wanted to mobilise academia against this bad trial, how would he do it? Or does he think it's impossible? In which case, should his group also be turning their attention to that general problem - the one of what do you do about a bad trial that's already been conducted and is affecting the health of patients?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom