Support MIA

MIA relies on the support of its readers to exist. Please consider a donation to help us provide news, essays, podcasts and continuing education courses that explore alternatives to the current paradigm of psychiatric care. Your tax-deductible donation will help build a community devoted to creating such change.

$
Select Payment Method
Personal Info

Credit Card Info
This is a secure SSL encrypted payment.

Billing Details

Donation Total: $20 One Time

2 COMMENTS

  1. Any real scientist would not need this article. There is no such thing as a “negative result” to a real scientist. There are only results and their implications. A “negative result” implies that the researcher had a desired outcome, rather than objectively seeking the truth. Of course, we all know that such researchers are the norm today, and that most have substantial financial and professional conflicts of interest, but it’s time to stop allowing these biased technocrats dominate the language we use and get back to the real scientific method. Real science values “negative results” even MORE than “positive results,” because when a hypothesis is defeated, it gives a degree of certainty, whereas validation of a hypothesis only calls for more research to verify that the result can be replicated. The only absolute truth from science lies in “negative results,” so not publishing them is scientific suicide.

    • Good point, Steve. And the pharmaceutical / medical industries’ refusal to publish “negative results” in recent years, especially when it comes to the antidepressants and antipsychotics, has seemingly resulted in not just “scientific suicide,” but a lot of patient suicides, too, I’ve read.