Sloppy researchers beware. A new institute has you in its sights
“WHY most published research findings are false” is not, as the title of an academic paper, likely to win friends in the ivory tower. But it has certainly influenced people (including journalists at The Economist). The paper it introduced was published in 2005 by John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist who was then at the University of Ioannina, in Greece, and is now at Stanford. It exposed the ways, most notably the overinterpreting of statistical significance in studies with small sample sizes, that scientific findings can end up being irreproducible—or, as a layman might put it, wrong.
Dr Ioannidis has been waging war on sloppy science ever since, helping to develop a discipline called meta-research (ie, research about research). Later this month that battle will be institutionalised, with the launch of the Meta-Research Innovation Centre at Stanford.
METRICS, as the new laboratory is to be known for short, will connect enthusiasts of the nascent field in such corners of academia as medicine, statistics and epidemiology, with the aim of solidifying the young discipline. Dr Ioannidis and the lab’s co-founder, Steven Goodman, will (for this is, after all, science) organise conferences at which acolytes can meet in the world of atoms, rather than just online. They will create a “journal watch” to monitor scientific publishers’ work and to shame laggards into better behaviour. And they will spread the message to policymakers, governments and other interested parties, in an effort to stop them making decisions on the basis of flaky studies. All this in the name of the centre’s nerdishly valiant mission statement: “Identifying and minimising persistent threats to medical-research quality.”
The METRICS system
Irreproducibility is one such threat—so much so that there is an (admittedly tongue-in-cheek) publication called the Journal of Irreproducible Results. Some fields are making progress, though. In psychology, the Many Labs Replication Project, supported by the Centre for Open Science, an institute of the University of Virginia, has re-run 13 experiments about widely accepted theories. Only ten were validated. The centre has also launched what it calls the Cancer Biology Reproducibility Project, to look at 50 recent oncology studies.
Until now, however, according to Dr Ioannidis, no one has tried to find out whether such attempts at revalidation have actually had any impact on the credibility of research. METRICS will try to do this, and will make recommendations about how future work might be improved and better co-ordinated—for the study of reproducibility should, like any branch of science, be based on evidence of what works and what does not.
The Latest on: Bad science
[google_news title=”” keyword=”Bad science” num_posts=”10″ blurb_length=”0″ show_thumb=”left”]
via Google News
The Latest on: Bad science
- Banning safe pesticides is bad policy and harmful to farmerson May 9, 2024 at 1:49 pm
The bill would ban the use of neonicotinoids, insecticides applied as seed coatings to avoid costly pesticide spraying while targeting only the pests.
- Blinded by the light: How bad are satellite megaconstellations for astronomy?on May 9, 2024 at 3:00 am
The emergence of satellite megaconstellations like SpaceX's Starlink offers great benefits for humanity. But there are also substantial costs, including a growing imposition on astronomy.
- How Bad Are Ultraprocessed Foods, Really?on May 6, 2024 at 2:00 am
Unprocessed or minimally processed foods, like fresh or frozen fruits and vegetables, beans, lentils, meat, poultry, fish, eggs, milk, plain yogurt, rice, pasta, corn meal, flour, coffee, tea and ...
- Why cracking your knuckles is so satisfying—and if it’s really a bad habiton May 3, 2024 at 9:44 am
Your friends and family may have told you knuckle cracking is bad for you. But is it really as harmful as some might think?
- The Sci-Fi Writer Who Invented Conspiracy Theoryon April 27, 2024 at 5:00 pm
But even bad science fiction can make very fine propaganda. Annalee Newitz is a science journalist who also writes science fiction, and their latest novel is The Terraformers.
- Bad Science Fictionon April 23, 2024 at 5:00 pm
The guys in Bad Science Fiction say, “Noise is a favorite little plaything. In the meantime, we’ve all played-in and seen professional this and professional that, from slick to sick. Frankly ...
- Real Science Behind 'Breaking Bad': Breaking the Meth and the Mythson November 8, 2023 at 5:07 am
It’s also a fascinating look at the intersection of fiction and real-world science. While “Breaking Bad” seamlessly weaves chemistry into its storyline, it prompts a question: How much of ...
- 25 underrated science fiction movieson September 14, 2023 at 12:51 pm
There are great science-fiction movies. There are bad science-fiction movies. And then there are the science-fiction movies that never get the credit they deserve...until now. Our list is here to ...
- The Bogus Science behind ‘Implicit Racism’on December 19, 2017 at 1:00 am
Biden’s Effort to Politicize the Department of Veterans Affairs Is Unacceptable Pro-TikTok PAC Launched Ad Blitz for Nancy Mace as She Tried to Kill Divestment Measure Why Do College Students ...
- Our Post-Christian Culture Often Replaces Faith with Nonsenseon October 6, 2016 at 2:54 pm
In the hard sciences there is, of course, abundant evidence of real progress, though the progress is often not from superstition to science but from bad science to better science. Medicine today ...
via Bing News