Wednesday, August 02, 2006

Procter research shenanigans part 2: On graphs and honeybees

Misleading graphs form part of the attempt by Procter and Gamble Pharmaceuticals (P&G) to interfere with scientific evidence about their osteoporosis drug Actonel (backstory here, here and here). Several similar graphs (with supposedly supportive statistics) appeared in reports prepared by P&G based on data generated in Sheffield. They also appeared in a P&G funded publication (Eastell et al. 2003 J.Bone.Miner.Res. 18:1051-6), underpinned meeting abstracts, and two draft ghostwritten P&G publications with myself as intended first author -- all while P&G refused authors access to randomization codes and other underlying raw data.

Here is an example (from Eastell et al (2003) J. Bone. Miner. Res. 18:1051-6).

Much more of this later. However I was reminded of some correspondence in Science 30 years ago in response to a graph and statistics in a paper by Roubik (Science 1978: 201;1030).

Which prompted Robert Hazen to respond (Science 1978 202:823):

Earlier|Later|Main Page


Anonymous said...

I just want to say that your story is incredible. It is not just a story about P&G. It's one example of how corporate money affects scientific research. Your presentation of the facts is remarkably reserved. I hope more people find out about this.

Anonymous said...

I am so so disappointed in Richard Eastell. I am following the story closely, but I think I have seen enough. So sad that you have to resort to blogging.

Anonymous said...

Good heavens! My comment may appear asinine beside such a laudable continuing expose of this so called research, but the graphical disquisition on the African Honey bee has just made me laugh so much that I now have spilt my morning coffee all over my keyboard!
I am so glad that I found your blog site; I am enjoying the education immensely. Thank you.