Here's What's Wrong with Science...

[sexobon]

[Rod Steiger] You are about to enter ... your data for a chi-square contingency table analysis. [/Rod Steiger]

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by orthodoc

It's only the frauds and charlatans, like Andrew Wakefield and his ilk,

Yeah, I didn't take that bait the first time, and I'm not going to this time either. I understand you have a personal problem with some of my beliefs. That's fine. Fraud is not what I'm looking to discuss here, and you and tw are welcome to continue on without me, if you'd like.

Originally Posted by orthodoc

I have already pointed out that errors in research are identified and corrected with time.

This is how I know, by the way, that you've taken this whole thing personally, and aren't actually paying attention to a word I'm saying. I didn't need you to point out the fact that errors are identified and corrected over time--I considered that a given in the OP, and then specifically stated it in my second post, just in case someone happened to get the false idea that I was unaware of how the system of scientific review works. I made an implication about the existence of error correction in my third post, and then clearly stated it again in my fourth post.

I'm sorry I offended you, ortho. And I'm sorry you hate Wakefield so very much, and by extension me. That's kind of not my problem.

[orthodoc]

I don't hate you, Clod. If I am angry at Wakefield for what he did, that doesn't extend to you in any way. I disagree with some of your beliefs, which is not the same as having a 'personal problem' with them. You probably wouldn't describe yourself as having a 'personal problem' with some of my conclusions, even though you disagree with them. You're an intelligent person who has devoted great time and energy to your family's health and well-being. Given your intelligence, though, I didn't expect a statement like 'Here's what's wrong with science: most studies are designed by stupid people' from you. I'm sorry I took the bait.

[footfootfoot]

MAJOR CAT FIGHT FAIL.

[BigV]

You took the words RIGHT OUT OF MY HEAD.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by orthodoc

Given your intelligence, though, I didn't expect a statement like 'Here's what's wrong with science: most studies are designed by stupid people' from you. I'm sorry I took the bait.

If it helps, I'll broaden it:

Here's what's wrong with government... most laws are written by stupid people.
Here's what's wrong with public education... most educators are stupid people.
Here's what's wrong with humanity... most people are stupid people.

I believe all of the above to be true. I'm just misanthropic, that's all.

[Aliantha]

There were some who believed that with the invention of the first motor vehicle, you could never go over 60 miles an hour because it'd be impossible to breath. Obviously we know that's not true, but it doesn't change the fact that a scientist proved it to be true initially.

Science, like all other facets of life, is an evolving creature. What seems dumb at first, might in fact be true (like flying to the moon for example).

As to whether or not negative thoughts lead to negative outcomes, we all know by now that this is usually true, so in a way, it's possible to believe this study has at least some merit when it says that people with a negative view of their marriage will probably end up divorced. I would suggest you don't need to be a scientist to make that judgement though.

Anyway, you girls need to kiss and make up. I think the blokes want pics too btw.

eta: Ortho, don't take things too personally. It's the interwebz and we're all friends here (sorta lol), so we're allowed to make sweeping statements during moments of frustration. We all do it now and then. Some more than others. In fact, I do it ALL the time!

[sexobon]

I've been reviewing a Weird Science study
and so far I haven't detected any flaws:

[Pico and ME]

Well, I did not react positively to my husband-to-be when I first saw him, and we have been married for 11 years. Fairly happily, too.

I know that is not the point of the OP...

I think its fair to say that most humans are stupid...that is, not perfect specimens who always think and react intelligently. So, of course, their scientific studies will often follow suit. And especially if the motive for the study is flawed or just has an agenda. But that is just my 'layman's' conclusion.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Here's an example of taking way to long to correct.

it took them 8 years after publication of the paper—and five after we submitted a retraction and 4 and a half years after we published PROOF of fraud (later borne out by Rutgers’ investigation) for them finally to “retract” a paper now cited 136 times

part of the long delays is that the journal really sees no upside to admitting fraud and then one of the co-authors Lee Cronk unaccountably defended the fraudster William Brown to the bitter end

here is what happened at the bitter end; this was Nature’s suggested wording:

“Since publication of the Letter, it has come to our attention that
certain aspects of data handling and treatment make the conclusions of the report unsound.”

[footfootfoot]

Citing fraudulent studies brings this story to mind:

Originally Posted by http://www.cuf.org/2010/09/the-art-of-living-the-feathers-of-gossip/

The story is often told of the most unusual penance St. Philip Neri assigned to a woman for her sin of spreading gossip. The sixteenth-century saint instructed her to take a feather pillow to the top of the church bell tower, rip it open, and let the wind blow all the feathers away. This probably was not the kind of penance this woman, or any of us, would have been used to!

But the penance didn’t end there. Philip Neri gave her a second and more difficult task. He told her to come down from the bell tower and collect all the feathers that had been scattered throughout the town. The poor lady, of course, could not do it-and that was the point Philip Neri was trying to make in order to underscore the destructive nature of gossip. When we detract from others in our speech, our malicious words are scattered abroad and cannot be gathered back. They continue to dishonor and divide many days, months, and years after we speak them as they linger in people’s minds and pass from one tale-bearer to the next.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Here's an example of taking way to long to correct.

Originally Posted by tw

Diederik Stapel ... as a fraudster in maybe 55 papers on psychology. 30 were definitely found fraudulent. ...

He got away with it for so long because he did extensive preliminary research; created hypothesizes that were credible. So no one questioned his research. Dr Schön, on the other hand, was making breathtaking conclusions. So it only took almost five years to discover his fraud. IBM's Watson labs (and others) repeatedly tried and failed to reproduce his results.

The most obvious fraud took almost five years just to be exposed. Then more time to get the word out. How many of those other studies, that could not reproduce those results, were published? Too many adults entertain their feeling (dislike negative results) rather than deal with facts.

They are not stupid. They are too emotional; therefore not logical. Too many want to tell you what you want to hear.

[DanaC]

Interesting comment piece in the Guardian, from early December (only just read it).

Randy Schekman, a cell biologist, and winner of the 2013 Nobel prize for medicine, considers the way the primacy of 'luxury journals' impacts on scientific research:

I am a scientist. Mine is a professional world that achieves great things for humanity. But it is disfigured by inappropriate incentives. The prevailing structures of personal reputation and career advancement mean the biggest rewards often follow the flashiest work, not the best.

-snip-

We all know what distorting incentives have done to finance and banking. The incentives my colleagues face are not huge bonuses, but the professional rewards that accompany publication in prestigious journals – chiefly Nature, Cell and Science.

He goes into more detail about the role of such publications in building reputations and opening doors to further employment or research opportunities, as well as the use of impact scores and how they work.

It is common, and encouraged by many journals, for research to be judged by the impact factor of the journal that publishes it. But as a journal's score is an average, it says little about the quality of any individual piece of research. What is more, citation is sometimes, but not always, linked to quality. A paper can become highly cited because it is good science – or because it is eye-catching, provocative or wrong. Luxury-journal editors know this, so they accept papers that will make waves because they explore sexy subjects or make challenging claims. This influences the science that scientists do. It builds bubbles in fashionable fields where researchers can make the bold claims these journals want, while discouraging other important work, such as replication studies.

In extreme cases, the lure of the luxury journal can encourage the cutting of corners, and contribute to the escalating number of papers that are retracted as flawed or fraudulent. Science alone has recently retracted high-profile papers reporting cloned human embryos, links between littering and violence, and the genetic profiles of centenarians. Perhaps worse, it has not retracted claims that a microbe is able to use arsenic in its DNA instead of phosphorus, despite overwhelming scientific criticism.

His response, along with some others in the scientific community is to embrace an alternate peer review process through open publishing and ejournals.

It's an interesting read.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...damage-science

[Lamplighter]

Clod, I found that a very interesting article
... mainly because I retired my own research career before Gore invented the internet.

I followed the link in the article, and was amused that the first screen was a "sign up" page.
But at least it did not ask for subscription $ or an institutional certification.

I was also amused that the first actual article I scanned had 100+ references.
In my day, the editors would have been more concerned about saving paper !

OK, to the main points.
The concept of eLife does seem different than paper journals in the length of time-to-publication.
But the consolidation of reviews seems the best improvement.
I do remember receiving editor- and peer-review letters requesting almost opposing changes.
This seems to be something all editors could/should do, not just on-line journals.

So, I get the better time factor, the consolidated reviews, and editorial decisions,
and now to my remaining question... what is meant by an "open-source" model.

Professional competition, jealousy and antagonism did exist, and probably still does.
But authors were usually were allowed to recommend or exclude
certain people as "peer reviewers" of their submission.
I assume most journal editors still allow this sort of guidance.

As I read the link, there is still a "senior editor" and "co-editors" that act as the gate-keepers.
The "peer-review" seems to come only after these editors have already committed to publication.

ETA: I just received an eLife email asking mw to confirm my subscription
... requesting email address and password. Now why would they need/want that ?

[Clodfobble]

(I am flattered to be mistaken for DanaC, but I didn't post that last article, she did. )