Download icon

Point of View: Four erroneous beliefs thwarting more trustworthy research

  1. Mark Yarborough  Is a corresponding author
  2. Robert Nadon
  3. David G Karlin
  1. University of California, Davis, United States
  2. McGill University, Canada
  3. Independent researcher, France
Feature Article
  • Cited 0
  • Views 1,902
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2019;8:e45261 doi: 10.7554/eLife.45261

Abstract

A range of problems currently undermines public trust in biomedical research. We discuss four erroneous beliefs that may prevent the biomedical research community from recognizing the need to focus on deserving this trust, and thus which act as powerful barriers to necessary improvements in the research process.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Mark Yarborough

    Bioethics Program, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, United States
    For correspondence
    mayarborough@ucdavis.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8188-4968
  2. Robert Nadon

    Department of Human Genetics, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. David G Karlin

    Independent researcher, Marseille, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Funding

The authors declare that there was no funding for this work

Reviewing Editor

  1. Emma Pewsey, eLife, United Kingdom

Publication history

  1. Received: January 17, 2019
  2. Accepted: July 25, 2019
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: July 29, 2019 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: August 9, 2019 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2019, Yarborough et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,902
    Page views
  • 224
    Downloads
  • 0
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)