Skip to main content

Research Not for Patients

  • 88 Accesses


To clarify the causes of diseases and to develop new therapies is not only the task of the pharmaceutical industry, which we dealt with in the previous chapter, but above all basic biomedical research. Pharmaceutical companies also draw their ideas for drug development from the findings of all biomedical scientists worldwide.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

USD   19.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-95293-8
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   29.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 8.1
Fig. 8.2
Fig. 8.3
Fig. 8.4
Fig. 8.5


  1. 1.

    Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG et al. (2003) Translation of highly promising basic science research into clinical applications. The American Journal of Medicine 114:477–484,

  2. 2.

    Bührlen B et al. (2010) Status and conditions of clinical research in Germany and in comparison to other countries with special regard to non-commercial studies. TAB Reports to the German Bundestag 135,

  3. 3.

    Goldacre B et al. (2018) Compliance with requirement to report results on the EU Clinical Trials Register: cohort study and web resource. BMJ 362:k3218,

  4. 4.

    Prinz F et al. (2011) Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 10:712–713,

  5. 5.

    Begley C & Ellis L (2012) Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483:531–533,

  6. 6.

    Freedman LP et al. (2015) The Economics of Reproducibility in Preclinical Research. PLOS Biology 13:e1002165,

  7. 7.

    Baker M (2016) 1500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility: survey sheds light on the ‘crisis’ rocking research. Nature 533:452–454,

  8. 8.

    Fanelli D (2009) How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PlOS One 4:e5738,

  9. 9.

    Belas N et al. (2017) P-Hacking in clinical trials: A meta-analytical approach. Working Paper Series 19. Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg Faculty of Economics,

  10. 10.

    Rosenthal R (1979) The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological bulletin, 86:638–641,

  11. 11.

    Sena ES (2010) Publication Bias in Reports of Animal Stroke Studies Leads to Major Overstatement of Efficacy. PLOS Biology 8:e1000344,

  12. 12.

    Brembs B (2018) Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 12:1–7,; Brown EN & Ramaswamy S (2007) Quality of protein crystal structures. Acta Crystallogr. D Biol. Crystallogr, 63:941–950,

  13. 13.

    Begley CG & Ellis LM (2012) Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483:531–533,

  14. 14.

    Van Noorden R (2011) Science publishing: The trouble with retractions - A surge in withdrawn papers is highlighting weaknesses in the system for handling them. Nature 478:26–28,

  15. 15.

    Chalmers I & Glasziou P (2009) Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 374:86–9,

  16. 16.

    Glasziou P et al. (2020) Waste in covid-19 research. BMJ 369:m1847,

  17. 17.

    Gautret P et al. (2020) Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial. Int J Antimicrob Agents 105949,

  18. 18.

    Retractionwatch COVID-19,

  19. 19.

    Piller C & Servick K (2020) Two elite medical journals retract coronavirus papers over data integrity questions. Science,

  20. 20.

    Grudniewicz A (2019) Predatory journals: no definition, no defense. Nature 576:210–212,

  21. 21.

    Navarro GM (2019) United States District Court - District of Nevada,

  22. 22.

    Ferro S (2013) Nonsense Paper That Cites Michael Jackson And Ron Jeremy Actually Gets Published. Popular Science,; Shelomi M (2020) Opinion: Using Pokémon to Detect Scientific Misinformation. The Scientist,

  23. 23.

    Forster V (2020) Eight Fraudulent Cancer Research Studies Contained The Same Copied Results. How Does This Happen? Forbes,

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Schmidt, H.H.H.W. (2022). Research Not for Patients. In: The end of medicine as we know it - and why your health has a future. Springer, Cham.

Download citation