Nature | Comment

Research: A standard for policy-relevant science

Ian Boyd calls for an auditing process to help policy-makers to navigate research bias.

Article tools

PAUL HACKETT/IN PICTURES/CORBIS

The purported decline in bee numbers raises questions about evidence quality.

The increasing concern about unreliability in scientific literature1, 2 is a problem for people like me — I am the science adviser to DEFRA, the UK government department for environment, food and rural affairs. To counsel politicians, I must recognize systematic bias in research. Bias is cryptic enough in individual studies, let alone in whole bodies of literature that contain important inaccuracies2, 3.

It worries me that because of bias, some parts of the published scientific literature, such as studies on the safety of genetically modified (GM) organisms and pesticides, or trends in biodiversity measurements, might have only limited use in policy-making.

To mitigate this problem, policy-makers should consider holding published scientific evidence to an audited standard that can be replicated and is robust to variations in assessor competence. A weighting factor, or 'kite mark', applied to journals or individual articles, could help policy-makers to assess the robustness of studies for use in particular applications. Similar methods established by non-profit standards associations are used in research to certify laboratory practice and in engineering to certify building standards.

The quality of research results fluctuates because of varying tractability in the problems being probed1, 4. For example, it is easy to judge the efficacy of an experiment to engineer a tomato to produce the pigment anthocyanin5, because if it succeeds, that tomato is the colour of a ripe plum. It is much harder to judge the reliability of a study investigating whether a GM crop is toxic to animals6. The latter situation is much more susceptible to inaccuracy and interpretation.

These problems are amplified in complex issues such as the environmental effects of GM organisms or chemical pollutants, including pesticides and endocrine disrupters. In these cases, experimentation is needed at scales large enough to provide statistical power in the presence of high background noise. The problem is amplified further when statistical inference is used.

Scoping the problem

Systematic bias across whole fields of science is even more cryptic and therefore more problematic. It could stem from the combined effects of how science is commissioned, conducted, reported and used, and also from how scientists themselves are incentivized to conduct certain research7. Such bias results from actively searching for a particular outcome, rather than performing balanced hypothesis testing. For example, in 2006, researchers in the United Kingdom and in the Netherlands found that the number of insect pollinators might have declined8. A consequent call for proposals (see go.nature.com/audhny) contained the underlying assumption that there was a decline, rather than conveying a need to establish whether current information about declines was robust.

“What I propose augments rather than replaces peer review.”

Another problem is the tendency to treat different studies as statistically independent, even when they have emerged from connected commissioning processes and could therefore amount to multiple testing of the same hypothesis, meaning that every extra study must overcome an increasingly rigorous statistical hurdle to demonstrate efficacy. In combination, these kinds of bias can make individual or groups of studies that report certain effects seem more important than they really are. I suspect that these effects could be a factor in the continuing controversies surrounding genetic modification and the failure of the EU regulatory system to process applications to license new GM products.

A common reaction to such controversy is to commission subject reviews or meta-analyses1 that assess the weight of evidence for certain effects across many individual studies. Ideally, reviewers would use processes similar to those deployed in the Cochrane Reviews that inform decision-making in health care9.

But reviews also contain pitfalls. First, they risk amplifying rather than eliminating systematic bias — which could be more common in some subjects than others. Second, they can be affected by the increasing tendency not to publish 'negative' results4. Meta-analyses can compound the prevalence of false positives in the literature, and can be blind to unreported true negatives. We need rules for how to deal with these issues when compiling literature reviews for policy-relevant research.

Seal of approval

Strict procedures govern experimental design and the evidence standards for trials that are used to determine the efficacy and safety of GM organisms, pesticides or drug therapies. But once products are licensed for use, they are often subject to less formal investigations. The same relaxation of rules applies to testing the efficacy of policy interventions. Ad hoc studies, with all the problems outlined above, can then carry disproportionate political weight when their results question the operational integrity of a licensed product, or the effectiveness of a policy10. Quality-control criteria are needed for these studies that are outside a regulatory framework.

We need an international audited standard that grades studies, or perhaps journals. It would evaluate how research was commissioned, designed, conducted and reported. This audit procedure would assess many of the fundamental components of scientific studies, such as appropriate statistical power; precision and accuracy of measurements; and validation data for assays and models. It would also consider conflicts of interest, actual or implied, and more challenging issues about the extent to which the conclusions follow from the data. Any research paper or journal that does not present all the information needed for audit would automatically attract a low grade.

Such a system would provide policy officials and others with a reliable way of assessing evidence quality, and it would drive up standards in scientific research to reverse the worrying trends that suggest underlying bias1–4, 7.

Critics will counter that my proposed certification standard would be subjective and would shift the job of assessing quality away from expert peer reviewers. But in its current form, peer review fails to set a consistent standard. What I propose augments rather than replaces peer review, and assessment could be carried out on behalf of authors, journals or users of information through the use of third-party certified auditors.

I do not underestimate the challenge of establishing such a system, but it would bring standards to scientific publishing that are common practice in other disciplines. Ultimately, this will increase the rigour and transparency around the scientific literature that is used in policy decisions.

Journal name:
Nature
Volume:
501,
Pages:
159–160
Date published:
()
DOI:
doi:10.1038/501159a

References

  1. Egger, M., Davey Smith, G., Schneider, M. & Minder, C. Br. Med. J. 315, 629634 (1997).

  2. Begley, C. G. Nature 497, 433434 (2013).

  3. Fanelli, D. PLoS ONE 4, e5738 (2009).

  4. Fanelli, D. Scientometrics 90, 891904 (2012).

  5. Zhang, Y. et al. Curr. Biol. 23, 10941100 (2013).

  6. Doull, J. et al. Food Chem. Toxicol. 45, 20732085 (2007).

  7. Fanelli, D. PLoS ONE 5, e10271 (2010).

  8. Biesmeijer, J. C. et al. Science 313, 351354 (2006).

  9. Jadad, A. R. et al. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 280, 278280 (1998).

  10. Stokstad, E. Science 340, 674676 (2013).

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Ian Boyd is chief scientific adviser at the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in London. He is also professor in biology at the University of St Andrews, UK.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to:

Author details

For the best commenting experience, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You will be re-directed back to this page where you will see comments updating in real-time and have the ability to recommend comments to other users.

Comments

Commenting is currently unavailable.

sign up to Nature briefing

What matters in science — and why — free in your inbox every weekday.

Sign up

Listen

new-pod-red

Nature Podcast

Our award-winning show features highlights from the week's edition of Nature, interviews with the people behind the science, and in-depth commentary and analysis from journalists around the world.