From last module, we raised the question whether research is just waste of time after all. Indeed, research can be extremely waste of time, effort, and even money.
Unfortunately, and somewhat strangely, the answer to this question isn't straightforward. Although it might seem like the answer should be "no," there are a few factors to consider, e.g., current research practices and the reasons research is being conducted today.
It’s overly important to understand how and why research can sometimes be a waste of time, so you can avoid wasting your time, effort, and money on unproductive research, and instead focus on conducting the most significant and impactful research.
A study, named “What is the purpose of medical research?”, conducted in Lacent says: "When asked about the purpose of medical research, most people would likely respond: to advance knowledge for the benefit of society, to improve global health, or to find better ways to treat and prevent disease. The reality, however, is different. The research environment, with its various players, is now much less conducive to such noble goals." It further adds: "Research has become an enterprise, an economic engine for nations, a necessary step on the path to economic growth. But surely, the purpose of research should be more than that."
Tea is good for you. Tea is bad for you. You must drink 8 glasses of water a day. No, wait—16 glasses.
Sometimes, research findings can feel like they’re more contradictory than clarifying, leaving people confused not only uninformed. Oddly enough, contradictions themselves aren’t the real problem. If two studies produce contradictory results, that’s not necessarily an issue. It’s yet a sign that more research is needed to know the truth. Ideally, research is conducted without bias (we’ll talk more about that later), and contradictory findings can actually be beneficial:
The real problem arises when research is biased. Biases, often coupled with methodological flaws, play a significant role in creating misleading or contradictory results. For example, a study (Contradicting/negative results in clinical research: Why (do we get these)? Why not (get these published)? Where (to publish)?) said “the scientist sets up a hypothesis in mind. Many times, the scientist knows what they want to find, which influences the study results from the very start.”
It is not rare that research is funded by lobby groups, where agenda-driven groups aim to prove something. These groups, like anyone, have their own goals, usually to sell something. It may be milk, spinach, instant noodles, condoms, cigarettes, sugar, weigh protein powder, etc.; it doesn’t matter what it is. They however invest vast financial resources into studies designed to promote their products. As you can see, this is not scientific inquiry anymore, i.e., research has not been research anymore. This is a huge point to understand: what they did is a total waste of time, plus it may even kill people, however, it is “what they did” not “research”. Research is sublime and systematic, never lacking the integrity, ethics, and objectivity, where they did fully lacks those.
What is alarming is that this issue isn’t rare. A famous incident was in 1967, when the Sugar Research Foundation paid Harvard scientists around $49,000 (adjusted for inflation) to publish a review minimizing sugar’s role in heart disease. The sugar industry cherry-picked studies for the review; the studies selected showed and emphasized the dangers of saturated fat while downplaying the risks of sugar. The study was published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
It was also shown by an analysis of abstracts presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes annual meetings (2010–2013) that that around 80% of research on insulin and oral therapies and more than 50% of research on blood glucose measurement was industry-sponsored.