Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Most Science Studies Appear to Be Tainted By...

...Sloppy Analysis

These flawed findings, for the most part, stem not from fraud or formal misconduct, but from more mundane misbehavior: miscalculation, poor study design or self-serving data analysis. "There is an increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims," Dr. Ioannidis said. "A new claim about a research finding is more likely to be false than true."

The hotter the field of research the more likely its published findings should be viewed skeptically, he determined....

In research published last month in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Ioannidis and his colleagues analyzed 432 published research claims concerning gender and genes. Upon closer scrutiny, almost none of them held up. Only one was replicated.


Socrates.

Curious. I wonder what the specific categories were. I have a deep suspicion of many studies that are published by psychologists, teachers, and doctors (and even some engineers) who may not have a strong background in science.

Socrates. I don't see a link so I don't know what you're refering to.

socrates:
Please post a link to what you are referencing so we can all look at what you are criticizing.

Amaranth - I don't believe Socrates was "criticizing" anything, but rather simply making a post regarding a study's findings (although he should have linked the paper, or news article). I believe he got the story from this page http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB118972683557627104.html

Here's a link to an essay done by Dr. Ioannidis in 2005, I'm assuming it's closely related to the paper Socrates posted with regard to.
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124



Now, I'll be the first to welcome Socrates to the forum (whereas the previous 2 longtime posters and one moderator chose not to).

Has anybody ever stopped and thought that perhaps the reason for the anemic membership here, was because of because of the not-so-warm welcome new members are greeted with?

"whereas the previous 2 longtime posters and one moderator chose not to)"
I didn't notice it was a new poster and therefore it is misleading to say that I "chose" not to welcome him.

I was not aware that this was a first-time posting. I treated it with the same measure that I treat all comers. If a person chooses not to identify themselves as first-time posters, it is bloody difficult to find out sometimes.

That said, welcome to the forum, socrates. I hope you'll find us a good place to cuss and discuss things.

Thanks for the welcome and apologies for not posting a link.

Wasn't really criticizing, just thought it would spark some debate. Thought it was interesting that the discipline that is supposedly the most accurate may be shot through with errors.

Not saying it's a huge problem because science gets results regardless.

Socrates.

I'm a new member.

The findings make sense, and are probably partly explained by a couple features in research - You cannot report a negative finding as easily as a positive finding, and you must publish or perish.

The problem is overcome by other labs trying to reproduce the result. Perhaps if there was a branch of funding that was available for this, then more labs would be interested in trying to replicate others' findings.

HI, Free, and welcome to the forum. I hope you find it a comfortable place to discuss all things scientific.

Amaranth

hi - this is my first post here, but if this is science, i`d expect no quarter and give none(in the nicest possible way)

courtesy is still free i beleive.

anyway,i think the rason why science works is because we`re turning the cogs of the universal clockwork mechanism a bit,(experimenting) then noting the hands go this way or that.(observing)

we see a definite connection between cause and effect, but we don`t know the exact cog train that does it.

science isn`t wrong or contradictory, just incomplete.

could an entity exist that knows everything?

wouldn`t it have to occupy every point in the universe and all of time simoltaneuosly?

the biggest and oldest thing that ever existed? can only be the universe itself (so i reckon).

Hello M LeVert, and welcome to the forum. Courtesy is always welcome. Enjoy the ride!