Spin puts negative findings in a more palatable way to editors, journals, patients, funders and readers. There are many ways to do this4 (see Boutron et al.1 for a systematic evaluation of different forms of spin). For example, in negative or underpowered clinical trials, authors can emphasis the within-group differences or claim that both interventions are equally effective. Alternatively, trivial findings can be exaggerated by expressing data as percentages or talking about relative risk reduction rather than absolute risk reductions. Spin can be seen when one or two trivial positive findings from many, many outcomes and endpoints are focused upon; these are findings that chance alone would explain. Spin comes in many shapes and sizes and often goes unnoticed by the novice reader. It is also surprising how often spin goes unnoticed by authors of systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines. These authors unwittingly duplicate spin. The end result is heightened legitimacy to treatment approaches which are not founded in high quality evidence.

So why the spin? Why isn’t science impartial? Much has been written about these issues.1 Some argue that spin is just the consequence of the highly competitive and commercial system we all work within. That is, there are many rewards for researchers who report positive findings. For example, their research is more likely to be published5, 6 and cited. They will be able to lay claim to making new discoveries. They will be more likely to receive future grants. All of these factors help progress an individual’s career and reputation and give legitimacy to their work. This is however perhaps a fairly cynical view of science and researchers. Surely researchers are not quite so self serving. The far more likely explanation is that researchers are blinded by their own passion. Passion is usually accompanied by devotion, optimism and loyalty to one’s profession. These qualities lead to an overwhelming desire to help people with SCI and to prop up the legitimacy of different professions and treatment approaches. These qualities are all admirable but dangerous if left unchecked. They do not foster impartial science. Instead, they foster a burning desire to demonstrate that treatments researchers believe in are effective. This then manifests itself in spin.

Log in or create a free account to read this content

Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com

Access through your institution

or

Sign in or create an account
Continue with Google
Continue with ORCiD