Hypothesizing After Results are Known (HARKing) presents as a questionable research practice and a significant problem for science.

 What exactly is HARKing? What does it look like, and why is it problematic?

Let’s start by looking at how we typically perform scientific studies. For example, as inquisitive minds, we might want to know whether living with aardvarks in the home makes people happier. Now we have a goal. The next step creates alternative and null hypotheses. We need both because science cannot 

 anything and instead follows a methodology of falsification.

Australian-British philosopher and academic, Karl Popper, has a famous black swan example that best describes this: If you hypothesize that all swans are white, finding 1000 or even 1 million white swans does not prove this hypothesis. Finding 1 black swan, on the other hand, will disprove the hypothesis.

The alternative and null hypotheses exist as mirror opposites of each other. We then design studies in an effort to disprove the null hypothesis (because we can only disprove in science). As a result, the alternative hypothesis is typically framed to mirror what we hope to find. Then, when the study disproves the null hypothesis, we can accept—but not prove—the alternative hypothesis.

A null hypothesis might go something like this: “The happiness of people cohabiting with an aardvark for a period of 30 days is the same as that of those who do not.” Our goal is to disprove the null hypothesis by seeing a statistical difference between these 2 groups. Then we can say that people who live with aardvarks are much happier.

We also want to know what the probability is that we are correct in our findings. We do not want to make a wrong conclusion based on random chance. The amount that we are willing to risk on simple chance is arbitrary, but it is often set at 5%. The probability value, or 

 value, measures the statistical probability that our findings might be due to random chance. Given this, you want a very, very low number. With 5% being represented as a 

 value of .05, we hope for a number that is much lower than .05. Anything above this would mean that we are not confident that our findings are not the result of random chance.

If we compare our aardvark- and non–aardvark-cohabiting people, we could find a way to measure their happiness levels and compare. And, if a difference exists, we could run statistics to determine the probability that the difference was due to chance alone. Thus, if our results showed that people living with aardvarks were happier with a 

 value of .05, we could say, “We are 95% confident that the happiness level of people living with aardvarks for 30 days is higher than those who do not.” We would have disproved our null hypothesis, and we could publish our article and start promoting aardvarks as pets.

But let’s say that we did not find that living with aardvarks makes you happier. Unfortunately, well-designed scientific studies that do not show an association are less likely to be published. On the surface, this seems like a good thing, but this is the basis for what is called “publication bias.” This means that great data showing no likely association exists between 2 things are never published and can’t be referenced. As a result, the available medical literature may become biased in support of positive findings, even when sometimes there is truly no real difference. Researchers must not only look for associations but also find some in order to be published.

So, we have a bunch of people living with aardvarks for a month and a control group, and we saw no difference in their happiness levels. We want to be published, though, so what do we do? Luckily, beyond using the ACME Happy-O-Meter, we also looked at many variables within the study. We can go back and look to find statistical differences between our aardvark-cohabiting and non–aardvark-cohabiting people. When we find some associations, we can perform HARKing.

Why is this bad? Isn’t this what research is about, looking to find new associations? It is and it isn’t. The problem is that random chance does occur, and we can find false associations. How often? Well, we have already set our own limit for this. We will accept up to 5% random chance.

When we use this set level for a hypothesis prior to testing, we can honestly say that there is a 95% chance that the conclusion regarding the hypothesis is not due to chance. We cannot say this with HARKed data. Imagine there is a bucket of 95 white marbles and 5 blue marbles. The probability of picking a blue marble “on 1 try” is 5%. If we pick 5 times (keeping the number of balls the same), our chance of picking at least 1 blue marble is now 22.6%. If we pick 20 times, 64.15%; and 30 times, 78.5%. These additional chances to grab blue marbles are referred to as the problem of multiplicity. If we run enough data, we are almost sure to find a blue marble. See the problem?

The problems of multiplicity and HARKing intertwine. Multiplicity within the study is the statistical problem that allows HARKing to result in the publication of false-positive (Type I error) results. Studies that look at many variables in many ways may look intriguing, but they are often at high risk for multiplicity, HARKing, and Type I error results.

Now, let’s assume for this article that there is absolutely no difference in living with aardvarks for a month vs not. Everything is exactly the same. In our aardvark study, we looked at many variables: how long people slept, use of flossing, the frequency of quizzical looks, wearing blue, wearing green, eating cereal, etc. If we looked at 30 different variables, there is a 78.5% chance that we would find a statistical difference between the 2 groups that is based solely on random chance (multiplicity). Hence, if we found that people who lived with aardvarks statistically drank more orange juice, it might be possible to say that “living with aardvarks has been identified with increased vitamin C consumption and is deemed good for your health,” which would be HARKing. We could also publish a 

 value of .05 and write the study to show that this was what we looked for. After all, consuming vitamin C and avoiding scurvy is a great step toward happiness, right?

Thus, as readers of studies, it is easy for us to take a quick look at the abstract and conclusions and see that there is a reason to live with aardvarks. When challenged, we can say, “No, it is true. Look at the 

 value!” The false-positive (Type I) error we are willing to accept for the ACME Happy-O-Meter and for orange juice is the same (5%), but the actual risk for error for each of these variables is very different because of multiplicity.

When we set up the design, the possibility of a false-positive (Type I) error, or pulling a blue marble with regard to the original null hypothesis, remains at 5%. Although this threshold is the same for each of the subsequent variables, variables are being pulled and evaluated until significance is found. With multiplicity in play, 30 grabs at marbles mean that the possibility of pulling a blue marble amidst our results is 78.5%. Due to multiplicity, there is concern that increased orange juice consumption while living with aardvarks may be a blue marble—that is, a statistically different value based solely on chance, despite the fact that the 

When we look at associations that are found with HARKing, we don’t know whether they are white marbles or blue marbles; that is, are they an association based on truth or an association based on chance? The 

 value can no longer provide us with the same level of assurance when HARKing is involved.

How do we know whether there was HARKing? Sometimes it can be difficult. If the study only provided data on the relationship between living with aardvarks and orange juice consumption, we may never know. On the other hand, if we see the original null hypothesis, the data by the ACME Happy-O-Meter, along with a long list detailing other evaluated variables such as how long people slept, use of flossing, the frequency of quizzical looks, wearing blue, etc, we can more easily surmise that increased orange juice consumption is the result of multiplicity and HARKing. This doesn’t necessarily mean that this is false, but it certainly doesn’t mean that it is true either. It may make us suspicious that it is a blue marble, but we don’t know. It does warrant another study for orange juice consumption and living with aardvarks. This would be an appropriate use of HARKing.

We could run another study whose null hypothesis was: “The orange juice consumption of people cohabiting with an aardvark in the home for a period of 30 days is the same as that of those who do not.” Then if we saw a statistical difference with a 

 value of .05, we could say, “We are 95% confident that living with aardvarks for 30 days increases your consumption of orange juice than living without one.” Same 

 value, same association, but completely different in how we as readers should interpret the data.

The first study does not allow us to be confident in the result regarding orange juice consumption, and the second does. But we know from the original discussion that we assumed no difference in living with or without aardvarks. Thus, the second study would likely not find a relationship with increased orange juice consumption. Those researchers could also want their study published and start HARKing through multiple other variables, looking for an association. Then perhaps there was a random association with increased flossing. The cycle could continue, and through HARKing, incorrect assumptions may work their way into our scientific beliefs. Soon, people could be adopting aardvarks because of the misperception regarding positive benefits for health and happiness.

So, if you don’t want to be living with aardvarks, beware of HARKing! HARKing is a questionable research practice that can introduce unnecessary risk for additional Type I errors into the published literature. These errors can detract us from the truth and diminish our scientific knowledge.

Kerr NL. HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known. 

. 1998;2(3):196-217. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4

FZE BBC. The Karl Popper concept of falsifiability philosophy essay. UKEssays. Published September 20, 2024. Accessed May 20, 2025. 

https://www.ukessays.com/essays/philosophy/the-karl-popper-concept-of-falsifiability-philosophy-essay.php

Null hypothesis: definition, symbol, formula, types and examples. BYJU’S. April 25, 2022. Accessed May 20, 2025. 

P-value: comprehensive guide to understand, apply, and interpret. GeeksforGeeks. January 31, 2024. Accessed May 20, 2025. 

Articles

An explanation of HARKing, multiplicity, P-value interpretation, and why HARKing is problematic.

HARK, I hear a misperception!

In this video interview with dvm360, Dj Haeussler Jr., DVM, MS, DACVO, shares common ulcer red flags and treatment mistakes ahead of his lecture at Fetch Nashville 

Video interview with Dj Haeussler Jr., DVM, MS, DACVO

 ahead of Fetch Nashville, DJ Haeussler Jr, DVM, MS, DACVO, gave a small insight into his upcoming lecture by discussing what signs indicate it is time to refer to an ophthalmologist for a corneal ulcer. He explained what red flags could present in the patient, indicating they need to see a specialist sooner rather than later. Within the interview, Haeussler also explained common mistakes he sees general practitioners make when it comes to treating ulcers in general practice. 

Below is a partial transcript, edited lightly for clarity.

Depth is the big one. If you are looking at something in an ulcer, and it really gives you a feeling that it looks deep, that should be referred very quickly. Also, colors play a big part, so any sort of yellowing is more concerning; that would indicate that there's some sort of infection, such as bacterial or fungal infections. Then if the ulcer is melting, [it needs] to be referred immediately. So, if the cornea looks very soft and has a melting appearance, [it] should be referred quickly. 

This may sound a little off, [but] putting a medication that isn't indicated for an ulcer on an eye, and that's for any disease, is—we see a lot of cases where maybe a dog is diagnosed with glaucoma, and they're sent with [a] triple antibiotic. That's not going to do anything for that. So, utilize notes from conferences or textbooks, and pick an appropriate medication to treat that condition. Then, of course, the biggest one is never use steroids in an eye with an ulcer, which pretty much everybody knows, because they hammer that pretty hard in vet school. 

Want to learn more from Haeussler? He is speaking at a Fetch conference for the first time ever in Nashville, Tennessee, at the end of this month. Register today to hear from key industry experts like Haeussler by heading to the Fetch Nashville website. 

Ahead of his lectures at Fetch Nashville, DJ Haeussler Jr, DVM, MS, DACVO, provided general practitioners tips on when to refer to a specialist, plus ulcer red flags.

Navigating corneal ulcers in general practice

Aaron Shaw, OTR/L, CHT, CSCS, talks about how sleep can affect emotional stress and shares 3 tips for better sleep

Wellness Tip of the Week: How to get better sleep

 to boost mobility and help correct slouched posture.

This week, Aaron Shaw, OTR/L, CHT, CSCS, healthspan coach and host of the 

 podcast, is sharing 3 tips for better sleep. As Shaw explains, sleep is important not only for physical recovery but also for emotional stability, as feeling stressed can be linked to not getting enough sleep.

Below is a partial transcript, lightly edited for clarity:

 Hey, this is Aaron Shaw with a Wellness Tip of the Week. I want to talk about something that most people on the vet health team are not getting enough of—that is sleep. Sleep is where the magic happens. Sleep is where our body recovers from the wear and tear of day-to-day life. So, if you find yourself a little crabby, maybe a little foggy-headed, maybe not making the sharpest decisions, and even feeling stressed, oftentimes, it's not actually the stress that's the problem; it’s that you're underslept.

Sleep is where our nervous system can recover from the wear and tear of day-to-day life. When you don't get [enough] REM [rapid eye movement] sleep...what suffers is part of our brain called the amygdala. This is the part of the brain that really processes the emotional stress [and] emotional demands of day-to-day life and preps us for tomorrow's demanding life that we have.

So, it's not a personality flaw if you're feeling on edge and not sleeping well; it's just neurobiology. It's something that we all have to deal with. So, I want to give you 3 tips that you can do that will help [to] maybe just get you a little bit better sleep.

Tip 1: At least 30 minutes—maybe even 60 minutes—before you go to bed at night, have a technology cutoff time. Set that timer where, after a certain point—an hour before you go to bed—you have no screen time. No phones, no computers, and even no TV [and] no Netflix. Resist; you can do it. And what that will help you do is get some of that light shining in your eyes out of your face and help you be prepared for sleep quicker.

Videos

Aaron Shaw, OTR/L, CHT, CSCS, talks about how sleep can affect emotional stress, plus 3 tips for better sleep.

Wellness Tip of the Week: Ways to get better sleep

There are several common upper airway diseases seen in canine patients. Each disease has different characteristics and requires a different approach to treatment. In a session at the 2025 Fetch dvm360® Conference in Charlotte, North Carolina, Christopher G. Byers, DVM, DACVECC, DACVIM (SAIM), CVJ, a practitioner in Omaha, Nebraska, and founder and editor of CriticalCareDVM.com, shared tips on diagnosis and management of common upper respiratory tract disorders in canine patients.

Brachycephalic Obstructive Airway Syndrome (BOAS)

Brachycephalic dogs are anatomically predisposed to respiratory disease because of their stenotic nares and elongated soft palate. The changes in airway pressures can lead to everted saccules, gastroesophageal reflux disease, hiatal hernias, and, in end-stage disease, laryngeal collapse. Byers recommended that veterinarians “intervene as much as the owner will allow [as soon as possible]” to avoid progression of disease.

A strong suspicion of BOAS can be gained based on signalment, history, and physical examination. Dogs with this syndrome will often present with stertor and/or stridor and visibly stenotic nares. Approximately 25% of these dogs will also have a history of chronic retching, gagging, or vomiting.

 “If you see a brachycephalic patient presenting for [gastrointestinal signs], it is the airway until proven otherwise,” Byers reminded the audience. Definitive diagnosis of BOAS requires a sedated oropharyngeal examination to confirm an abnormal soft palate and assess for laryngeal changes, including paralysis and masses.

Many patients with BOAS may present acutely in respiratory distress. The goals of treatment are to improve airflow through the upper airway and reduce patient anxiety until definitive treatment can be pursued. This is accomplished by:

Providing oxygen through the least stressful modality, such as oxygen cage, flow-by, or nasal cannula.

Sedating patients to reduce anxiety and decrease the work of respiration. Byers recommended butorphanol and acepromazine in these cases.

In some cases, intubating patients to control the airway will be required.

Steroids can also be helpful in BOAS cases, but they are “not an emergency drug,” Byers said. An anti-inflammatory dose will help to reduce swelling, but it will take 3 to 4 hours to see this effect. Nebulizing epinephrine may provide a more rapid reduction in inflammation.

Finally, a temporary palatopexy can be performed in the emergency department to buy time until the patient can be taken to surgery. This procedure uses 1 to 3 sutures to temporarily tack the edge of the soft palate to the hard palate, thereby opening the airway.

Although there are medical options that can be used, surgery is the definitive treatment. Byers recommended that veterinarians “be proactive about surgery to reduce long-term chronic [airway] changes.”

Clients should be counseled about the potential risks of surgery and anesthesia. Byers noted that brachycephalic dogs have 4 times the risk of aspiration pneumonia compared with other patients, and 7% of these dogs will have postoperative complications. The Brachycephalic Risk (BRisk) score is an objective way to assess risk and provide data to help owners make the best decision for their dog.

This condition is seen most often in older, small-breed dogs. These patients have a congenital abnormality in the tracheal cartilage, which degenerates over time, resulting in the disease manifesting later in life. In most cases of primary disease, the cervical trachea is affected. Most patients present with a goose-honking cough that is exacerbated by activity or excitement. Sensitivity on tracheal palpation is suggestive of the disease but not definitive.

Diagnostic imaging provides a definitive diagnosis. Because the disease is dynamic in nature, plain radiographs may not be sufficient. Fluoroscopy and tracheoscopy or bronchoscopy may be required to obtain a diagnosis.

The primary goal of therapy is to reduce the cough. Byers noted that “getting rid of the cough completely is an unrealistic expectation,” but reducing the frequency and severity of coughing will improve quality of life for both patient and owner.

Numerous cough suppressants are available, but no one medication is superior to others. Byers’s personal preference is a combination drug of diphenoxylate and atropine (Lomotil; Pfizer Inc) that helps to dry secretions and decrease mucus production. In some cases, bronchodilators may be helpful. For patients with refractory disease, stenting can be performed as a salvage procedure.

Geriatric Onset Laryngeal Paralysis and Polyneuropathy (GOLPP)

Geriatric large-breed dogs are overrepresented in cases of GOLPP. The condition was previously called laryngeal paralysis, but 25% to 33% of these patients have polyneuropathies at the time of diagnosis. The disease is characterized by stridor and increased inspiratory effort. Some patients will present in respiratory distress, and many will have concurrent gait abnormalities such as stumbling or scuffing of the feet when walking.

Definitive diagnosis is obtained by performing a sedated laryngeal examination. A newer strategy to obtain the diagnosis is to use ultrasound to observe the movement of the cuneiform processes.

Like BOAS, patients with GOLPP need surgery for definitive therapy. Medical management is meant to be temporary and support patients until surgery can be performed. This includes sedation and anxiolysis, maintaining a healthy weight, and reducing exercise. The goal of surgery is to widen the glottis enough to allow adequate ventilation while maintaining enough glottic covering during swallowing to prevent aspiration.

Signalment, history, and physical examination findings are helpful in identifying the cause of canine upper respiratory disease. For patients with BOAS and GOLPP, medical management is meant to be temporary until definitive surgical treatment can be performed. In cases of tracheomalacia, medical management is prioritized, with surgical stenting reserved as a salvage procedure. Ultimately, early intervention provides the best outcomes for patients with all of these upper respiratory disorders.

, is a 2013 graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, a practicing veterinarian, and a freelance speaker and author in western Pennsylvania. She is passionate about mentorship, spectrum of care, and addressing common sources of stress for veterinary teams and recent graduates. Outside of clinical practice, Boatright is actively involved in organized veterinary medicine.

Managing upper airway diseases in dogs requires making an accurate diagnosis and targeted treatment. 

Medical management of canine upper airway diseases

The Veterinary Hospital Managers Association (VHMA)has announced the recent certification of 25 veterinary management professionals. Each of these individuals have earned the Certified Veterinary Practice Manager (CVPM) designation.

The CVPM program’s class of April 2025 includes Kendra Blevins, Elizabeth Capo, Laura Carrillo, Kristyn Chen, Ronielle Cole, Jackie Condrea, Kari Dummer, Marjorie Holloway, Katrina Looker, Samantha Maloni, William Maxwell, Daria McKay, Michelle Mellinger, Damaris Miguel, William Mize, Jamie Nelson, Sarah Peterson, DeeDee Remington, Jennifer Rising, Shauna Saenz, Tara Denise Stephens, Denna Stevenson, Erica Svencer, Amber Westby and Dana Willer.

The VHMA provides training, education, and resources to more than 5000members. A trusted resource for veterinary industry insights, research, and advocacy, the VHMA's main goal is to advance and support veterinary practice management professionals by developing professional competence, while supporting, and encouraging standards through the CVPM program. VHMA also provides individuals with a network for professional connection and support.

The voluntary CVPM certification program is recognized as a sign of professional achievement and excellence, according to the VHMA. The designation is awarded to veterinary practice managers who demonstrate the knowledge and experience necessary to successfully manage the evolving operations of veterinary practices.

The CVPM certification program is recognized and respected by practice leaders and others in the veterinary industry, according to the VHMA

Before completing the CVPM exam, applicants are required to meet practice management experience requirements and demonstrate that they have earned sufficient formal education and continuing education credits. The rigorous CVPM exam— offered electronically across North America to registered candidates—tests relevant management knowledge in human resources, law and ethics, marketing, organization of the practice, and finance.

Veterinary practice managers earn prestigious CVPM designation. News release. Veterinary Hospital Managers Association. May 12, 2025.

These individuals have earned the CVPM credential

VHMA awards certification to 25 practice managers 

The FDA recently approved a gene-editing technology used to make swine resistant to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS), a highly contagious disease for which there is no effective treatment. The technology, developed by the Pig Improvement Company (PIC), is among the first to receive FDA approval for the gene editing of commercial livestock in the United States and will be used to breed PRRS-resistant swine.

The FDA approval, which was granted on April 30, 2025, deems the technology to be safe and effective. The gene edit could provide a new tool for farmers and pork producers managing PRRS. “We have spent years conducting extensive research, validating our findings, and working with the FDA to gain approval,” Matt Culbertson, chief operating officer of PIC, said in a news release.

“Today marks a major milestone for consumers, farmers, and the entire pork industry who have desperately hoped for a solution to PRRS.”

In breeding animals, PRRS can cause reproductive impairment or failure, in addition to causing respiratory disease in pigs of any age, leading to premature death.

 The disease also suppresses the immune system of pigs, making these animals more prone to secondary infections that may require antibiotics.

PRRS is the most economically impactful disease in US swine production since classical swine fever was eradicated.

According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, the disease caused a loss of approximately $1.2 billion annually in the US pork industry production from 2016 to 2020, representing an 80% increase compared with the previous decade.

 Still, PRRS affects swine globally, particularly in major swine-raising countries.

Beyond its financial toll, PRRS affects animal welfare, increases the need for antibiotics, and raises the environmental footprint of raising swine. “Addressing PRRS can allow us to improve animal welfare and reduce the environmental impact of raising pigs,” Banks Baker, global director of product sustainability at PIC, said in a news release.

 “Recent research indicates that PRRS increases the need for antibiotics by more than 200%. Plus, a recent ISO [International Organization for Standardization]-conformant life cycle assessment found that eliminating PRRS could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5% in the US.”

According to PIC, Colombia and Brazil have “already issued positive determinations” for the technology behind PRRS-resistant pigs and will regulate them as they would any other pigs.

“We are committed to the responsible and intentional introduction of the PRRS-resistant pig around the globe,” Culbertson said.

 “Gaining FDA approval for the technology is an important step in this process, and we are working with additional countries to gain regulatory approval and protect global trade prior to initiating sales and delivery.”

PIC receives FDA approval for technology used to breed PRRS-resistant pigs. News release. Pig Improvement Company. April 30, 2025. Accessed May 16, 2025. 

https://www.pic.com/pic-receives-fda-approval-for-technology-used-to-breed-prrs-resistant-pigs/

Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS). Iowa State University College of Veterinary Medicine. Accessed May 16, 2025. 

https://vetmed.iastate.edu/vdpam/about/focus-areas/swine/swine-disease-manual/index-diseases/porcine-reproductive#:~:text=PRRS%20is%20an%20acronym%20(porcine,in%20pigs%20of%20any%20age

FDA approves gene-editing tech creating PRRS-resistant pigs. American Veterinary Medical Association. May 6, 2025. Accessed May 16, 2025. https://www.avma.org/news/fda-approves-gene-editing-tech-creating-prrs-resistant-pigs 

The technology will be used to breed PRRS-resistant swine.
