Monetary Driven Ignorance

The study, a review of 323 articles published last year in leading medical journals, found that only 147 of the clinical trials — 45.5 percent — were properly registered before the end of the trial in a way that clearly stated the main outcomes being assessed. Even among the articles that were registered, almost a third had discrepancies between the outcomes described in the registry and the ones ultimately reported.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/health/08aware.html?ref=health

The Study:
Comparison of Registered and Published Primary Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials

Sylvain Mathieu, MD; Isabelle Boutron, MD, PhD; David Moher, PhD; Douglas G. Altman, DSc; Philippe Ravaud, MD, PhD
JAMA. 2009;302(9):977-984.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/302/9/977?home

Results Of the 323 included trials, 147 (45.5%) were adequately registered (ie, registered before the end of the trial, with the primary outcome clearly specified). Trial registration was lacking for 89 published reports (27.6%), 45 trials (13.9%) were registered after the completion of the study, 35 (10.8%) were registered with no or an unclear description of the primary outcome, 39 (12%) were registered with no or an unclear description of the primary outcome, and 3 (0.9%) were registered after the completion of the study and had an unclear description of the primary outcome. Among articles with trials adequately registered, 31% (46 of 147) showed some evidence of discrepancies between the outcomes registered and the outcomes published. The influence of these discrepancies could be assessed in only half of them and in these statistically significant results were favored in 82.6% (19 of 23).

Conclusion Comparison of the primary outcomes of RCTs registered with their subsequent publication indicated that selective outcome reporting is prevalent.

i.e.
WILFUL IGNORANCE AT THE TOP LEVEL.