Title:Inferential statistics, power estimates, and study design formalities continue to suppress biomedical innovation

Abstract:Innovation is the direct intended product of certain styles in research, but not of others. Fundamental conflicts between descriptive vs inferential statistics, deductive vs inductive hypothesis testing, and exploratory vs pre-planned confirmatory research designs have been played out over decades, with winners and losers and consequences. Longstanding warnings from both academics and research-funding interests have failed to influence effectively the course of these battles. The NIH publicly studied and diagnosed important aspects of the problem a decade ago, resulting in outward changes in the grant review process but not a definitive correction. Specific reforms could deliberately abate the damage produced by the current overemphasis on inferential statistics, power estimates, and prescriptive study design. Such reform would permit a reallocation of resources to historically productive rapid exploratory efforts and considerably,increase the chances for higher-impact research discoveries. We can profit from the history and foundation of these conflicts to make specific recommendations for administrative objectives and the process of peer review in decisions regarding research funding. (C) 2013 S. Kern