Other studies failed to reproduce this finding, and in 2011, the editor of Science formally retracted its XMRV paper while the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences similarly retracted a 2010 paper which had appeared to support the finding of a connection between XMRV and CFS. Research funding
United Kingdom
The lack of research funding and the funding bias towards biopsychosocial studies and against biomedical studies has been highlighted a number of times by patient groups and a number of UK politicians. A parliamentary inquiry by an ad hoc group of parliamentarians in the United Kingdom, set up and chaired by former MP, Dr Ian Gibson, called the Group on Scientific Research into CFS/ME,: 169–86  was addressed by a government minister claiming that few good biomedical research proposals have been submitted to the Medical Research Council (MRC) in contrast to those for psychosocial research. They were also told by other scientists of proposals that have been rejected, with claims of bias against biomedical research. The MRC confirmed to the group that from April 2003 to November 2006, it has turned down 10 biomedical applications relating to CFS/ME and funded five applications relating to CFS/ME, mostly in the psychiatric/psychosocial domain.In 2008, the MRC set up an expert group to consider how the MRC might encourage new high-quality research into CFS/ME and partnerships between researchers already working on CFS/ME and those in associated areas. It currently lists CFS/ME with a highlight notice, inviting researchers to develop high-quality research proposals for funding.
Racial differences
Research on racial or cultural differences on the prevalence or presentation of conduct disorder is limited. However, according to studies on American youth, it appears that African-American youth are more often diagnosed with conduct disorder, while Asian-American youth are about one-third as likely to develop conduct disorder when compared to White American youth. It has been widely theorized for decades that this disparity is due to unconscious bias in those who give the diagnosis. References
Citations
Bibliography
Bernstein, N. (2000). Treating the unmanageable adolescent: A guide to oppositional defiant and conduct disorder. New York: Jason Aronson, Inc.
Decety J.; Moriguchi Y. (2007). "The empathic brain and its dysfunction in psychiatric populations: implications for intervention across different clinical conditions". BioPsychoSocial Medicine. 1: 22–65. doi:10.1186/1751-0759-1-22. PMC 2206036. PMID 18021398. Eddy, J. (2006). Conduct disorders: The latest assessment and treatment strategies (4th Edition). Kansas City, MO: Compact Clinicals. Eyberg S. M.; Nelson M. M.; Boggs S. R. (2008). "Evidence-based psychosocial treatments for child and adolescent with disruptive behavior". Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology. 37 (1): 215–237. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.595.3142. doi:10.1080/15374410701820117. PMID 18444059. S2CID 53345. Hughes, T. (2010). Identifying, Assessing, and Treating Conduct Disorder at School (Development and Psychopathology at School). New York: Springer. Lahey, B.B., Moffitt, T.E.,& Caspi, A. (eds.). Causes of conduct disorder and juvenile delinquency. New York: Guilford Press. Matthys, W. (2010). Oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder in children. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. McIntosh, K., & Livingston, P. (2008). Youth with conduct disorder: In trouble with the world. New York: Mason Crest Publishers. Raine A (2002).