Delve into the recent scrutiny surrounding neuroscientist Gerry Leisman's research in autism and ADHD. Discover the flaws in methodology, missing data, and questions raised about the validity of his work. Neuroscientist Dorothy Bishop's critical analysis sheds light on the importance of rigorous evidence and standards in determining effective treatments for these conditions.
Questioning the Validity of Gerry Leisman's Research
Neuroscientist Gerry Leisman's work in autism and ADHD has come under intense scrutiny, raising questions about the validity and reliability of his research. In this article, we delve into the criticisms raised by neuroscientist Dorothy Bishop and explore the flaws in Leisman's methodology and missing data.
What are the implications of these criticisms for the field of autism and ADHD research? Let's take a closer look at the concerns and their potential impact on the development of effective treatments for these conditions.
Flawed Methodology and Missing Data
One of the key criticisms raised by Dorothy Bishop is the flawed methodology employed by Gerry Leisman in his research. Bishop points out the absence of crucial data in the supplementary information section of his papers, casting doubt on the reliability of his findings.
Furthermore, a recent study published in Brain Sciences titled 'The relationship between retained primitive reflexes and hemispheric connectivity in autism spectrum disorders' presents data in the text that are not found in the associated dataset. Leisman has since made the data available by request on ResearchGate, but the initial lack of transparency raises concerns about the integrity of the research.
Lack of Control Group and Conflicts of Interest
Another area of concern highlighted by Dorothy Bishop is the lack of control groups in Gerry Leisman's studies. For example, a study published in Frontiers of Public Health, on which Leisman is the corresponding author, only had a pre- and post-test analysis, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions.
Bishop also questions whether participants in the study had paid to access the method being tested, based on a conflict-of-interest statement at the end of the paper. This raises concerns about the potential bias in the results and the credibility of the research.
Mischaracterized References and Overlapping Publications
Dorothy Bishop's scrutiny extends to the mischaracterized references and substantial overlap found in Gerry Leisman's publications. In one paper published in 2013, Bishop points out the misrepresentation of references and significant overlap with earlier publications by the same researchers.
These issues raise concerns about the integrity of the research and the credibility of the findings presented by Leisman and his colleagues.
Unavailability of Data from Clinical Trials
Dorothy Bishop also raises questions about the availability of data associated with a clinical trial discussed in a book chapter written by Gerry Leisman and his colleagues. The trial involved using a laser on the back of the head to treat autistic disorder, but the data associated with the trial were not publicly available.
This lack of transparency and unavailability of data hinder the scientific community's ability to evaluate the validity and reliability of the findings.
Implications for Autism and ADHD Research
The scrutiny surrounding Gerry Leisman's research raises important questions about the validity and reliability of studies conducted in the field of autism and ADHD. It highlights the need for rigorous evidence and adherence to scientific standards in determining effective treatments for these conditions.
Parents and caregivers in the autism field often seek answers and are willing to try treatments that may not have rigorous evidence supporting them. The scrutiny on Leisman's work serves as a reminder of the importance of critically evaluating research and ensuring that evidence-based practices are followed.