Scientific journals should insist on more robust experimental processes, according to biologists who reviewed nearly 900,000 experiments. The team from The Australian National University found that non-blind experiments - where scientists knew which samples they were recording -averaged a 27% stronger result than blind trials. However, their review suggests that less than one in four experiments used blind data recording. "We found that non-blind papers tended to exaggerate differences between the experimental group and the control group," said lead researcher Dr Luke Holman."For example, a non-blind trial of a new drug might conclude that it is way more effective than a placebo, when in fact the drug's true effect is rather modest, simply because the researchers' expectations biased the results."
展开▼
