A subtler problem may be at the root of why drug companies like J&J do what they do. This issue has little to do with the development and approval of drugs and everything to do with the accelerated speed of technology.
Doing Good Science Vs. Doing Rushed Science
What is science? What does it do for us? How much trust can be put in the scientific method? These questions all speak to the debate over Risperdal in a major way. After all, the hypothesis that “Taking Risperdal elevates prolactin levels in some people development of gynecomastia in some men” is a scientific hypothesis.
Philosopher of science, Karl Popper, once spoke the following words: “It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory—if we look for confirmations. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions… A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific… Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or refute it.” (bold and underline added)
But how does a researcher strive to “falsify” a hypothesis? The answer is that it takes a lot of ingenuity and relentlessness! Doing excellent science is hard. The scientist must be passionate, exacting, and creative, and must strive to disprove what they think is the truth. A single result (positive or negative) may not mean much, due to statistical artifacts. So a good scientist will conduct many different studies — and do those studies carefully, report them correctly, and have them interpreted correctly by smart people.
Sometimes, science quickly converges on an answer. For instance, physicists have conducted thousands of experiments that demonstrate the speed of light in a vacuum is approximately 186,000 miles per second. No experiment has (yet!) disproven this idea. Therefore, at least for now, the idea that the speed of light = ~186,000 miles second stands as a scientific “truth.”
Yet even this “truth” is always tenuous. A single experiment — that is done right and that can be replicated — can falsify a beautiful hypothesis. For instance, if researchers found something that can travel faster than light, this observation (if repeatable) would smash this revered scientific “fact” and force physicists to refine their theories. In other words, just like a Hollywood starlet might be considered “only as good as her last film,” a scientific “truth” is considered only as valid as the last experiment that failed to refute it.
For a free evaluation of your Risperdal case, call Davis & Crump at 800-277-0300 or email us at info@daviscrump.com.
