Research claims in the biomedical domain are not always consistent, and may even be contradictory. This thesis explores contradictions between research claims in order to determine whether or not it is possible to develop a solution to automate the detection of such phenomena. Such a solution will help decision-makers, including researchers, to alleviate the effects of contradictory claims on their decisions. This study develops two methodologies to construct corpora of contradictions. The first methodology utilises systematic reviews to construct a manually-annotated corpus of contradictions. The second methodology uses a different approach to construct a corpus of contradictions which does not rely on human annotation. This methodology is proposed to overcome the limitations of the manual annotation approach. Moreover, this thesis proposes a pipeline to detect contradictions in abstracts. The pipeline takes a question and a list of research abstracts which may contain answers to it. The output of the pipeline is a list of sentences extracted from abstracts which answer the question, where each sentence is annotated with an assertion value with respect to the question. Claims which feature opposing assertion values are considered as potentially contradictory claims. The research demonstrates that automating the detection of contradictory claims in research abstracts is a feasible problem.