The decline effect and the scientific method : The New Yorker (or why a lot of science is a bunch of BS)

[Guest guest]

“Once I realized that selective reporting is everywhere in science, I

got quite depressed,” Palmer told me. “As a researcher, you’re always

aware that there might be some nonrandom patterns, but I had no idea how

widespread it is.” In a recent review article, Palmer summarized the

impact of selective reporting on his field: “We cannot escape the

troubling conclusion that some­perhaps many­cherished generalities are at

best exaggerated in their biological significance and at worst a

collective illusion nurtured by strong a-priori beliefs often repeated.”

....

The disturbing implication of the Crabbe study is that a lot of

extraordinary scientific data are nothing but noise. The hyperactivity of

those coked-up Edmonton mice wasn’t an interesting new fact­it was a

meaningless outlier, a by-product of invisible variables we don’t

understand. The problem, of course, is that such dramatic findings are

also the most likely to get published in prestigious journals, since the

data are both statistically significant and entirely unexpected. Grants

get written, follow-up studies are conducted. The end result is a

scientific accident that can take years to unravel.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all

[Guest guest]

“Once I realized that selective reporting is everywhere in science, I

got quite depressed,” Palmer told me. “As a researcher, you’re always

aware that there might be some nonrandom patterns, but I had no idea how

widespread it is.” In a recent review article, Palmer summarized the

impact of selective reporting on his field: “We cannot escape the

troubling conclusion that some­perhaps many­cherished generalities are at

best exaggerated in their biological significance and at worst a

collective illusion nurtured by strong a-priori beliefs often repeated.”

....

The disturbing implication of the Crabbe study is that a lot of

extraordinary scientific data are nothing but noise. The hyperactivity of

those coked-up Edmonton mice wasn’t an interesting new fact­it was a

meaningless outlier, a by-product of invisible variables we don’t

understand. The problem, of course, is that such dramatic findings are

also the most likely to get published in prestigious journals, since the

data are both statistically significant and entirely unexpected. Grants

get written, follow-up studies are conducted. The end result is a

scientific accident that can take years to unravel.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all

[Guest guest]

“Once I realized that selective reporting is everywhere in science, I

got quite depressed,” Palmer told me. “As a researcher, you’re always

aware that there might be some nonrandom patterns, but I had no idea how

widespread it is.” In a recent review article, Palmer summarized the

impact of selective reporting on his field: “We cannot escape the

troubling conclusion that some­perhaps many­cherished generalities are at

best exaggerated in their biological significance and at worst a

collective illusion nurtured by strong a-priori beliefs often repeated.”

....

The disturbing implication of the Crabbe study is that a lot of

extraordinary scientific data are nothing but noise. The hyperactivity of

those coked-up Edmonton mice wasn’t an interesting new fact­it was a

meaningless outlier, a by-product of invisible variables we don’t

understand. The problem, of course, is that such dramatic findings are

also the most likely to get published in prestigious journals, since the

data are both statistically significant and entirely unexpected. Grants

get written, follow-up studies are conducted. The end result is a

scientific accident that can take years to unravel.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all

[Guest guest]

“Once I realized that selective reporting is everywhere in science, I

got quite depressed,” Palmer told me. “As a researcher, you’re always

aware that there might be some nonrandom patterns, but I had no idea how

widespread it is.” In a recent review article, Palmer summarized the

impact of selective reporting on his field: “We cannot escape the

troubling conclusion that some­perhaps many­cherished generalities are at

best exaggerated in their biological significance and at worst a

collective illusion nurtured by strong a-priori beliefs often repeated.”

....

The disturbing implication of the Crabbe study is that a lot of

extraordinary scientific data are nothing but noise. The hyperactivity of

those coked-up Edmonton mice wasn’t an interesting new fact­it was a

meaningless outlier, a by-product of invisible variables we don’t

understand. The problem, of course, is that such dramatic findings are

also the most likely to get published in prestigious journals, since the

data are both statistically significant and entirely unexpected. Grants

get written, follow-up studies are conducted. The end result is a

scientific accident that can take years to unravel.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all