http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031302910.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
When a group of British academic researchers reported last spring that women fond of eating breakfast cereal were more likely to give birth to boys, the story was lapped up by journalists the world over. "Skip breakfast for a daughter, eat up your cereals for a son," advised the Economist, just one of many publications to seize on the report.
The problem with this fascinating study? It appears to be wrong. An analysis led by Stan Young of the National Institute for Statistical Sciences found that the original conclusion was based on poor statistics and is probably the result of chance.
So far, Young's rebuttal, published in January, has received little notice. That it is ignored by many of the media outlets that lavished attention on the original report isn't surprising; in fact, the most remarkable thing is how ordinary that lack of attention may be. A lot of science, it turns out, can't withstand serious scrutiny. Thoughtful analysis by John Ioannidis suggests that more than half of published scientific research findings can't be replicated by other researchers.
Part of the problem is that we've been conditioned to trust university research. It is based, after all, on the presumably lofty motives of its practitioners. What's not to like about science carried out by academics who have nobly dedicated their lives to understanding the unknown, furthering knowledge and serving humanity?
Within academia's ivied walls (where I spent more than two decades), the view is a bit different. The university is not a peaceable kingdom, and life is far more Hobbesian. Henry Kissinger was on to something when he observed that "university politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small." In contrast to the academia-vs.-industry trope, hubris, self-interest and ambition are not checked at the university door; arguably, they are essential for admission and required for professional success.
University researchers are in a constant battle for recognition and the rewards associated with success: research space, speaking engagements, funding and autonomy. Consequently, while academic research is often described as "curiosity-driven," the reality is messier, as (curiously) many researchers tend to pursue the trendiest technologies and explore topics that happen to be associated with the most generous levels of research support.
Moreover, since academic success is determined almost exclusively by the number and prestige of research publications, the incentives to generate results are exceedingly powerful and can encourage investigators to see patterns that may not exist, to disregard contradictory observations that might be important, to overvalue data that might be preliminary or unreliable, and to embrace conclusions that deserve to be viewed with far greater skepticism.
What say you - Can it be trusted?
Originally posted by Merkpeer reviewed, confirmed research can be trusted. cherry picking one or two studies that have not undergone independent verification, no.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031302910.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
When a group of British academic researchers reported last spring that women fond of eating breakfast cereal were more likely to give birth to boys, the story was lapped up by journalists the world over. "Skip breakfast for a daughter, eat up your cereal ...[text shortened]... e viewed with far greater skepticism.
What say you - Can it be trusted?[/b]
Originally posted by MerkIt can be trusted....sometimes. In this case of breakfast cereal the whole thing belongs in the "who cares" dept.😏
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031302910.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
When a group of British academic researchers reported last spring that women fond of eating breakfast cereal were more likely to give birth to boys, the story was lapped up by journalists the world over. "Skip breakfast for a daughter, eat up your cereal ...[text shortened]... e viewed with far greater skepticism.
What say you - Can it be trusted?[/b]
Originally posted by ScriabinI think the media often gives science a bad name because a lot of these people don't really know how the scientific process works -- and there's the media's general tendency to make relatively mundane events (like your average snowstorm) into major news stories that will attract readers and viewers.
peer reviewed, confirmed research can be trusted. cherry picking one or two studies that have not undergone independent verification, no.
So you end up with reports about some "miracle breakthrough" or some "dire concern" -- that end up to be much less interesting than they seemed at first, or that end up being refuted upon further review. And when this happens, many people throw their hands in air, saying "the scientists keep changing their minds..I don't know what to believe anymore"
Everyone going into a career in the media should be required to take courses that teach about the scientific process, and how to properly interpret statistics.
Originally posted by FMFNo wonder you're all about sensationalism and so uninterested in fact and logic. This is how you think...
I think people should quote academic research that fits what they have to say and smear all contradictory research or smear people who cite it. What does it matter? The public domain is largely propelled by perceptions and delusions, and not by truths.
Originally posted by ScriabinAgreed. It's all about understanding proper scientific procedures, and looking for details such as sample sizes and exact findings rather than just accepting a reported conclusion.
peer reviewed, confirmed research can be trusted. cherry picking one or two studies that have not undergone independent verification, no.
The media has a bias towards sensationalism and making big stories out of trivial issues. This shows up in political journalism as well.
This is another reason why purely statistical studies like that one (robustness tests and others notwithstanding) which go from correlation to causation all to easily, should be viewed with a certain dose of skepticism.
Unfortunately, this phenomenon plagues the field of (behavioural) genetics. But such is the process of science in some fields. Those that made hasty conclusions will eventually be found out by subsequent ones.