The preident of the company that produce Glabrou Shampoo argue againt removing the ingredient HR2 from the hampoo even though a cientific tudy claim that prolonged ue of HR2 can contribute to hair lo. Three reaon are cited a the bai for thi deciion. Firt, it i argued that ince the cientific tudy involved only 500 ubject, it can be diregarded. Second, none of Glabrou cutomer have complained of problem during the pat year. And, finally, Glabrou competitor ue more HR2 per bottle than Glabrou. The preident deciion i problematic in everal repect.
To begin with, the fact that the cientific tudy on HR2 involved only 500 ubject i inufficient ground to dimi the reult of that tudy. If the ubject for the tudy were randomly choen and repreent a divere cro ection of the population of hampoo uer, the reult will be reliable regardle of the number of participant.
Next, the cientific tudy determined that prolonged ue could contribute to hair lo. While prolonged ue wa not defined in the memorandum, the fact that none of Glabrou cutomer have complained of problem during the pat year i not a reliable reaon to believe that problem will not arie in the future.