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
- Opinion: Does social media rewire kids’ brains? Here’s what the science really sayson April 26, 2024 at 3:00 am
Jonathan Haidt's "The Anxious Generation" feeds the latest technology panic. But the research says something different.
- A Simple Act of Defiance Can Improve Science for Womenon April 26, 2024 at 2:03 am
They don’t tell you beforehand that it will be a choice between having a career in science or starting a family. But that’s the message I heard loud and clear 17 years ago, in my first job after ...
- Why good science is needed more than ever, and so is good faithon April 17, 2024 at 6:56 am
The following is an excerpt from Paul Sutter's Rescuing Science: Restoring Trust In an Age of Doubt, from Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
- Climate Alarmists’ Bad Scienceon April 3, 2024 at 3:33 pm
Journal Editorial Report: A new government EV rule will give consumers and carmarkers little choice. Images: Getty Images/Zuma Press Composite: Mark Kelly I debunked research by the Federal ...
- The Bad Science Behind Jonathan Haidt's Call to Regulate Social Mediaon April 2, 2024 at 3:45 am
Bad studies tend to be the most newsworthy and ... It may be a contributing factor, but the purpose of social science research is not to confirm but to challenge our knee-jerk assumptions, because ...
- The Bad Science Behind Jonathan Haidt's Call to Regulate Social Mediaon April 1, 2024 at 5:00 pm
Even the best researchers resort to doing some easy, low-quality studies. Bad studies tend to be the most newsworthy and the most policy-relevant. Many of the papers Haidt compiled contained ...
- 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 ...
- Ivy League professor claims its 'bad science' to believe biological sex is binary: 'False' picture of biologyon May 2, 2023 at 4:49 pm
A Princeton University anthropology professor claimed that it is "bad science" to believe biological sex is binary – only male and female – by basing it on reproductive cells. The Ivy League ...
- Glyphosate Ban: Not about Green. About Greed.on October 27, 2017 at 12:30 pm
Europe’s glyphosate ban is yet another example of weak-kneed politicians’ capitulating to bad science, shady scientists, malevolent environmental activists, and greedy lawyers, and it could ...
- The Errors of the Militant Atheiston November 6, 2015 at 1:00 am
The problem in the conflict was bad science. By contrast, the post-Renaissance Biblical exegetes, mostly found within Protestantism, who objected to heliocentric theories on scriptural grounds ...
via Bing News