Bias in HIV Research Interpretation
Researchers Have a Motivation to Promote Their Work's Importance
Jul 19, 2009
It is well known that truly objective research is near-impossible, as all humans are encumbered by some sort of bias. Academic and medical researchers exist in a system with its own politics where public recognition is key to professional advancement. This reality has led to the idiom "publish or perish." Due to the importance of recognition, researchers attempt in a number of ways to make their work noticed, which can lead to bias.
Promotion-bias among researchers has been covered in an article by Astrophysist J.P. Dietrich in which he noted that a physics listserv's managers gave preference to their own articles, putting them at the top of the article lising (and also how this increased visibility had a positive effect on research). In the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Hilda Bastion specifically focused on the phenomenon of medical research results being interpreted in a way which conforms to the desire (bias) of the research's authors. These examples show that even if a researcher is able to conduct their research without bias, the conclusions they draw from their research should be scrutinized for bias.
A Canada-U.S. HIV "Breakthrough"
Media coverage of a Canada-U.S. HIV study led by Rafick-Pierre Sekaly has repeatedly characterized the study as an extremely significant first, and reveals the stilted nature of research claims. The study identified a reservoir for HIV (a hiding place for HIV which is not affected by HAARTs) located in a type of immune cell, and the interpretation of it is an excellent example of exaggerated importance. The authors of the study have said things to the media such as "It really is the first clue to allow us to eradicate HIV." This goes too far; the reality is that this research would have been impossible without prior studies on HIV resevoirs. Previous instances where scientific claims are given too much importance have shown that the relevence of other valuable data can be falsely reduced as a result; the delayed discovery of Mendel's genetic theory (the basis of current genetic theory) being one example of this.
Multiple HIV Reservoirs Mean There is No “Holy Grail”
Headlines such as "Local Researchers Say They Have Found Possible HIV Cure" show how the researchers have communicated a message which interprets their work as hugely important, an interpretation which would increase media coverage. Articles in the media reflect the limited knowledge of their writers, such as claims that HIV resevoirs exist only in immune cells, and miss points such as the existence of resevoirs in epithelial kidney cells. Had the authors made clear to the media the existence of other resevoirs, a new one being found would have received less sensational coverage as it would be realized that this study is not a "possible cure", but simply one piece of the puzzle.
The Ethics of HIV Research Claims
The argument of this article could be wrong; the Sekaly and the study's other authors may have actually found a pathway to curing HIV. The difference is that this article makes no grandiose claims; it only says “researchers should consider their ethical obligations when they make claims about the value of their research.” The study’s authors are claiming they found the genesis clue for curing HIV. At the end of the article’s abstract (published in Nature Medicine), the authors claim “viral eradication might be achieved...”, but the word “might” is not ethically sufficient when used in a statement to the magnitude of “we found a way to get rid of HIV.”
 |
