Drug results and correlation studies, both environmental and genetic, mostly. Which should be high enough volume that the "at least a high percentage" part should be true even if you add more reliable types of research, no? Or is medical science the wrong word for the category that includes both?
How much is a high percentage?
Or is medical science the wrong word for the category that includes both?
I do think so. A lot of pre-clinical medical science is more about understanding specific mechanism, not looking at correlations and mapping out risk factors.
Drug results and correlation studies, both environmental and genetic, mostly,
Do you have some data? I do agree that it's hard to actually learn something solid from epidemiology, biology is complicated and factors do not usually add in any intuitive way. But then there are categories where ...
Jonah Lehrer has up another of his contrarian science articles: "Trials and Errors: Why Science Is Failing Us".
Main topics: the failure of drugs in clinical trials, diminishing returns to pharmaceutical research, doctors over-treating, and Humean causality-correlation distinction, with some Ioannidis mixed through-out.
See also "Why epidemiology will not correct itself"
In completely unrelated news, Nick Bostrom is stepping down from IEET's Chairman of the Board.