There's a pervasive bias in academia against scientists who work in industry. It is often said that such individuals aren’t "real scientists." The less charitable describe them as having gone over to the so-called dark side. For at least two reasons, this is a shameful and hypocritical way to characterize industry.
A lot of my time -- a lot more than writing on most days -- is spent reading. Here are a few articles I came across this week where the author said it all. So rather than providing a rewrite, here are the primary sources.
Did you know if you had a cardiac arrest, the decision to give you a potentially life-saving medication or placebo – in the fleeting moment where seconds matter – might be made at random by those coordinating a study? A little-known FDA exemption allows for it.
Statistics is difficult, and choosing the proper tools becomes more challenging as experiments become more complex. That's why it's not uncommon for large genetics or epidemiological studies to have a biostatistician as a co-author. Perhaps more biomedical studies should follow suit.
Here's the first in a new series called Annoying Studies. These typically include research that is already known, redundant and possibly pushing an agenda. We start with a work just published in the journal Pediatrics on weight changes and regaining birth weight in the newborn period. 
A new systematic review of published calcium articles reveals new findings on what to expect from different types of calcium and their correlation to bones.
To many animal lovers, it may seem like a no-brainer research on animals should be banned. And this is the stance of over one million Europeans who signed a petition that the European Parliament is currently considering.