Two Controversial Topics In Research

Many magical thinkers oppose research findings falsifying their claims. Are such folks correct, at least in part? Click on the two links below for videos that do a good job of objectively analyzing Bayesian probability calculations and research study findings in general:

The Bayesian Trap

Is Most Published Research Wrong?

Good Research Is Hard To Find

My summary of science-based thinking is: question claims; demand objective evidence; think critically (in that order). Unfortunately, even scientists frequently misuse the scientific method. The link below presents the details involved with scientific research and how it can be in error either through mistake or conscious fraud:

Pitfalls in Research: Why Studies Are More Often Wrong than Right

Tricks Regarding Alternatives To Medicine "Research"

"Alternative medicine is an area that is now beginning to attract a reasonable amount of research. If we cast a critical eye on what emerges from it, we are bound to be harshly disappointed. The journals of alternative medicine are full of studies apparently showing that this or that alternative therapy is efficacious. Yet there are several compelling reasons to be sceptical about such findings. Much of what is being published in this area is hardly worth the paper it is printed on, and many of the researchers of alternative medicine are pseudo-scientists who seem about as trustworthy as a £4 note."

How to fool the public with a clinical trial that can’t fail

A "Manhattan Project" For Understanding The Brain

"Punching through to the next level of understanding of how our brains work may just require this level of collaboration. Obviously, not every research question is this complex and will require such a model. The big questions of science, however, likely do."

A New Collaborative in Neuroscience

Replication Of Studies A Key Component Of Research

"One very dominant pattern that I see on a frequent basis is the tendency to cite preliminary evidence as if it is rock-solid and confirmed. People will worry about the health effects of GMOs or vaccines because of a few flawed studies. They will promote the health benefits of a supplement based upon a preclinical study that is many steps removed from actual clinical claims. They will accept a new phenomenon as real based on studies that have never been replicated."

Reproducibility is Critical

Houston: Science Has A Problem

"A special issue explores how the research enterprise keeps early-career scientists from pursuing the most important work, and what can be done to help."

The plight of young scientists

Nutrition Activists Go After American Diabetes Association, CDC And Everyone Else

"We're not picking and choosing science and health positions based on donors or their marketing or lobbying agendas, inadvertently or not. If we mollified our statements based on that we wouldn't be the trusted consumer advocates we are (2) and we wouldn't get donations from the public. Some shills can be funded - U.S. Right To Know is 97 percent funded by organic food corporations who pay them to scaremonger genetically modified foods - but individuals won't give you money if they don't like your work and believe in your mission."

Link

Good Health And Nutrition Advise Available

"What caught our attention was the results of a survey run by the Independent Women's Forum that found:

-    '83 percent of women said they have trouble telling the difference between a legitimate scientific study and one designed to scare them; and

-    87 percent of women say they have a tough time finding sources for health and wellness information that they can trust.'

While we have no further information about the reliability of this survey or its generalization, these figures surprised us, and motivated us to reprint some advice about who to trust, and who not to trust."

It's Easy to Find Good Health/Wellness Information — Read ACSH

Research Studies Have Probability Wrong

"The problem is that the p-value gives the right answer to the wrong question. What we really want to know is not the probability of the observations given a hypothesis about the existence of a real effect, but rather the probability that there is a real effect – that the hypothesis is true – given the observations. And that is a problem of induction" 

The problem with p-values 

Watch For Unscientific Methods In Polling

"One of the keys to successful social science is to ask unbiased survey questions*. The lack of a control group is just sloppiness. Gallup should know better."

Gallup Poll: Great Example of How to Bias a Social Science Study

A Better Way Of Evaluating Chiropractic Effectiveness

"The research on chiropractic has been far from rigorous. One of the problems is that studies of spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) can’t be double blinded, and it is very difficult to even do single blinding. So most studies resort to non-manipulation control groups like “usual care” or “wait list” or “pain medication.” Those studies are practically guaranteed to lead to false positive conclusions: they make SMT look more effective than it would look if you could provide a control that patients couldn’t distinguish from real SMT."

A Credible Placebo Control for Chiropractic Research

Why Nutrition Is A "Soft Science"

"Of course, this type of clinical trial isn't suited to most nutritional research. Simply altering intake of one food or another doesn't take into account the rest of the diet, and again, accurate quantities are hard to come by. A well-controlled study of intake on a metabolic ward (a hospital or clinic where participants in a study might live or get all their foods), for example, involves actually weighing the foods, whose composition has been scientifically determined, given to participants. Any foods a person doesn't eat are weighed again, and the amount actually consumed can be determined by the difference. Obviously, this isn't conducive to learning what free-living people really eat.

"Unless and until we develop solid means of determining what people really eat, I'm afraid we're bound to continue to find contradictions in nutrition research."

Reliability of Nutrition Research Questioned

Private Investment In Research

"While the stated goal is both vague and overly ambitious, and the amount of funding is actually modest when compared to existing funding for medical research, I am actually a bit optimistic about the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative and projects like Biohub."

Is Mark Zuckerberg Going to Cure Disease?

Oh, by the way, Zuckerberg is an atheist.  So much for the need for religion to do good.

Scientists Aren't Immune From Societal Pressures

"Scientists incentivised to publish surprising results frequently in major journals, despite risk that such findings are likely to be wrong, suggests research."

Cut-throat academia leads to 'natural selection of bad science', claims study

Weather And Pain

"t is nearly 2,500 years since the Greek physician Hippocrates noticed a connection between pain and the weather, but scientists have shown that it may well be true."

Hippocrates' theory linking pain and weather could be right, say scientists

Football Decisions Are Not Science-Based

"Massey, Thaler, and Romer's works have been known for more than a decade, but NFL football coaches and owners still show near universal hesitance to adopt their advice. For all its high stakes, pro football is very much a conservative sport. Tradition trumps reason. Football is powerful, irrational, and instinctual, with an almost animal magnetism. Perhaps that's what keeps us watching."

If Football Teams Heeded Science and Reason, They Would Win a Lot More

Absence Of Evidence IS Evidence Of Absence

"Absence of evidence, or the failure to observe evidence that favors a hypothesis, is evidence against that hypothesis. This is because we are significantly more likely not to see evidence for a hypothesis when it is false than not to see it when it's true — some assertions demand that the universe be screaming with supporting evidence, so when that evidence is not actually observed, it counts against it."

(NOTE:  This is true when an hypothesis has been thoroughly investigated)

If evidence is lacking when we expect it to be abundant, then it very much allows us to dismiss a hypothesis.

The Odds Of Dying From Events

"The National Safety Council publishes an “Odds of Dying Chart” that affirms we are more likely in our lifetime to be killed by everyday activities - and they would like to prevent that, which is why they publish a probability of events.  Accidental death is far more likely than being murdered by a gun. There is a 1 in 144 chance of dying from a fall compared to 1 in 6780 from severe thunderstorm, and a 1 in 470 chance of dying in a car as opposed to 1 in 164,968 chance of a lightning strike."

We Are Killing Ourselves

Research Fraud At Duke Piles Up

"Duke officials took a closer look at her work and didn't like what they saw. Fifteen of her papers, mostly dealing with pulmonary biology, have now been retracted, with many notices citing "unreliable" data. Several others have been modified with either partial retractions, expressions of concern, or corrections. And last month, a U.S. district court unsealed a whistleblower lawsuit filed by a former colleague of Potts-Kant."

Whistleblower sues Duke, claims doctored data helped win $200 million in grants

Challenges To Scientific Research Not Published

"The authors believe that one way to address this problem would be to link to rebuttals in the original papers so that readers understand that the paper is contested."

Virtually nobody reads or understands rebuttals to scientific findings