I think everything comes down to time and money, more so time. I've seen projects get cut just because the project was simply moving too slow. Yes time is money but that shouldn't be the reason as to whether or not a project should continue. Clinical based projects should always be given the time needed to properly be executed, within in reason. Results should absolutely not be compromised to meet deadlines. In my opinion, that is how results become skewed in the first place. Project planning has to be almost perfect or at least projected with all the possible pitfalls in mind.
@anthonynjit I agree that cutting corners in research or clinical trials is never a good idea or compliant with standard GLP. When testing the efficacy and safety of any medical device safety should be paramount. I do know that there are times in which a device is only to be used for a procedure or temporarily so the long term effects greater that 2 years is not studied and the corner can be cut in this instance. However, the quality of the statistics are only as good as the quality of the research trial.
Research in industry can be volatile due to time and money constraints. Sometimes, corners need to be cut in order to meet deadlines or cut down costs. What do you believe is the deciding factor between a viable study and poor study when cutting down on resources or speeding up results? Should results be compromised to meet deadlines?
I don't think that cutting corners in research is ever a good thing, but yet it happens in clinical settings. A lot of time when it comes to cutting corners in research is due to meeting deadlines, and time constraints, budget cuts, or funding. However, it is never a good reason to cut corners because it can result too serious data manipulation and error. It can also put public safety at risk depending what field you're working in and FDA regulations and violations that can cause industries and big companies to loss profit, mistrust of the stakeholders, and a negative reputation. Compromising your character and intergrity for the sake of your career is very risky and should never be taken into consideration because it will always come back on you. You have to make a choice if it's worth it.
Cutting corners in research can be very dangerous. There are steps that need to be looked over very carefully in order to make sure that everyone is safe and that the research they are doing is effective. For example creating a new medication, if you rush the research process you could end up with a medication on the shelf that causes severe complications down the road because important corners were cut during the research process.
Cutting corners in research is a dangerous business. Especially when research is so often progressed by other people. If someone were to perform their own research based on information that was derived on less than ideal practices this can change the shape of the research moving forward. I believe that if a company is truly running out of all of the resources to properly run a study they should consider outsourcing it to a different lab. If that is still not applicable to the deadlines or budget constraints possibly discarding the entire project may be better than producing subpar research.
You made some great points. Cutting corners in research is dangerous and unethical. The sole purpose in conducting research is to find out what is known, and what can be developed further. In order to do so, the public has to trust researchers and the organizations who are initiating the research. A great example that you mentioned was that labs can lose funding if they got caught cutting corners in their research. Doing so can hurt patients in the end and cause employees to get fired, even if they aren’t aware they are participating in unethical practices.
Cutting corners usually has a negative connotation to it, seen as "cheating" in a sense. I don't think cutting corners should be seen as negative if it's a means of working more effectively, or as many say, "working smarter, not harder". With that being said, I do believe that cutting corners should be seen as a means of working more efficiently rather than taking the shortcut to a solution, especially in the field of biotechnology (in any capacity), as taking shortcuts can lead to negative consequences. For instance, with something as simple as following a procedure for creating a compound, "cutting corners" cannot occur, as those directions are necessary for the reactions that occur within the mixture. On the other hand, if combining steps or using an alternative method to produce the exact same results, barring any potential errors and side-effects of that alternative, cutting corners could be seen as acceptable. There's not always one "right way" to accomplish a task, but determining those things beforehand is crucial.
We live in a society where people want everything instantly; whether it's a package, food, or service, we don't want to wait too long for anything. when producing a product, the industry recognizes the demand. Customers will only wait so long before they move on. This puts pressure on companies, putting stress and a strain on personnel, leading to cutting corners. Companies are under tremendous stress to produce a product under tight deadlines and on or under budget Cutting concerns can have repercussions and consequences. Cutting corners is very dangerous but not unheard of. The demand doesn't match what the reality should be. It takes time to produce a quality & safe product; it is a process of research, design, trials, & clinical trials, approval, to production/manufacturing.
Question: what's the best way to handle a compromising situation that may suggest cutting concerns to meet a deadline?
@zandrews You made a very interesting point. Cutting corners doesn't always have to equate to a negative connotation. Working efficiently is key to getting a project to the finish line. Efficiency eliminates waste and saves money and time. To be efficient, a project must be organized. When I read your statement, I think of "mindset." You altered my perception of what I thought was "cutting corners," it doesn't have to stay in a negative light. Companies or researchers can address cutting concerns and redefine it to fit their values and goals.
@sseal98 I agree with you about the big companies being under immense scrutiny during the rapid COVID vaccine creation process; however, I don't see that as a bad thing at all. It forced the companies to avoid unscrupulous behaviors because they were so intensely being watched in the public eye. Additionally, it was a scenario of the perfect timing for research that was being conducted all along. In fact Dr Kizzy Corbet and her team were the masterminds behind the Moderna vaccine. They had already been working on the creation of an mRNA vaccine and this particular novel strand of coronavirus worked well. I know it was not without it's issues but overall the vaccine did just what it was supposed to do which was to provide protection in the event of exposure.
@wmckennedymsm-edu So true, I often wonder what goes through the minds of respected scientists who decide to engage in unscrupulous behaviors that cut corners in their research. Not only do they discredit themselves and their accomplishments, they put the public in danger and this creates mistrust between the scientific community and the public. It is completely unethical and I do believe there should be greater consequences for cutting corners to hopefully discourage scientists from doing so in the first place. Great observation!
I definitely think some studies in the industry are negatively affected when corners are cut, depending on the study and what is cut. I believe that there is always a 50/50 chance that when corners are cut, it could either have no effect on the research or it could cause failure. There are many studies that cut corners and change certain factors of their medias and other solutions used last minute, which I believe is because they had to finish this process with a certain deadline set by their company. This leads to failures down the line because of the lack of intensive research in how these changes could affect the cells of patients, depending on their health. I think during the planning phase, there should be meetings to discuss what could be detrimental to the research if cut and what would have less of an impact if cut. This might help researchers with being mentally prepared if the company asks them to reduce their testing so that have tests in mind that they could get rid of if necessary.
I agree with most people that cutting corners in research is dangerous and should not be done. In most classes and research projects I have seen, a power analysis is usually done with the number of animals per group that are needed to show significance. In a study my lab is currently helping with, to save money they do not have a control or vehicle (injecting saline or an inert substance to ensure that the drug delivery is not what is causing the changes) groups. This in turn makes all the results meaningless, and in trying to save money, they wasted the money because you cannot draw any real conclusions from this data. In the world of biomedical engineering, because these products are affecting people’s quality of life, and could be life-saving a product should never have “corners-cut” to save money.
I have never been in a situation where someone told me to make an experiment cheaper, but if I was, I would try and see if some of the groups themselves could be cut, or if there was a cheaper animal to do the studies with that would not compromise the experiments results. What would you do in this situation? If you were in industry and had to go through with something like this, how would you handle it?
The majority vote on the matter of cutting corners is that people are not in favor of it and feel that it invalidates the research done. Main priority in Industry research is money, money, money, and results. It prioritizes the profit gained from what is being researched, when it should follow some guidelines from Academia and continue a test to its full and optimal conditions. Cutting corners when doing experiments gives a larger chance of having false data. There are many components that could go wrong that proves a wrong result or in the worst case scenario, does not even work. There could be a large chance that cutting corners on an experiment invalidates the whole process and instead of having wrong data, it gives bad to no usable data. This defeats the purpose of running an experiment overall. Especially in the example of medical devices, it seems extremely unwise to cut corners when researching components, whose main objective is to enter the body and improve functionality of someone’s life. In the end when someone's life could be at stake (or for any practice in general) there should be more consideration on budget and ensuring that an experiment is done with the most optimal procedures for the most accurate results available.
