Re: annals of cheesy research - don't believe everything you read

[Guest guest]

ugh...this sort of reinforces what I've often suspected. Many scientists don't seem to have much vision. They get focused on a particular task and develop a kind of tunnel vision. I know this seems like a big generalization, but I notice this in my scientist husband and his engineer father. They're both extremely smart, but when they work on projects around the house (like building a fence, say), they have difficulty adapting to the unexpected, or taking opportunities to improve upon their original plan. They just plow ahead with their original objective in mind even if a better way or more pleasing aesthetic presents itself. Unless someone's around to point it out (like me :-). It's like they can only focus on the plan they set in motion, and tweak things as needed to stay on task and obtain the original objective, even if those tweaks end up with an ugly result. :-) Many researchers do

seem dogmatic. Once they've got some evidence, they just can't be swayed from their hypothesis no matter what happens, unless it's something that builds upon what they already believe. Maybe it's the way they're trained in math etc. Or maybe it's just the way their brains work. Maybe that explains why so many of these studies were found to be flawed? The scientists can only see what they want to see? penny <usenethod@...> wrote: news.nature:"'The abysmal standard of statistical analysis in much of geneticepidemiology is little short of scandalous,' says Balding,professor of statistical genetics at Imperial College London, UK, whowas not involved in the study. 'This paper reveals an entire industryof prominently reported results that are largely unjustified andprobably mostly false.' " Ioannidis and his colleagues at the University of IoanninaSchool of Medicine in Greece evaluated 432 claims in 77 researchpapers (N. Patsopoulos et al. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 298, 880-893; 2007).The team applied a set of criteria to determine whether the papers'authors had performed the correct analysis, such as comparing likewith like, and had taken steps to show that the association was notdue to chance."Worryingly, only 12.7% of claims satisfied these criteria. "There isquite a gap between what should have been done and what the

journalsand reviewers should have asked for, compared with what the authorsdid," says Ioannidis."

[Guest guest]

> they have difficulty adapting to the unexpected, or taking opportunities to improve upon their original plan

>

That's men, Penny, MEN!

Most of the ones I have known, find it infuriating that women are forever "changing what we've already agreed upon", they see it as a sign of a disorderly brain, a brain that "goes all over the place". Most women I know complain of this. Men with tunnel vision. men complain that we are scattered, they just can't follow our trail(s) of thought. Something to do with having to do multiple tasks in the cave (children, food, talk with the co-wives etc) whereas the men just go out, grunting and hunting )

Nelly

Re: [infections] annals of cheesy research - don't believe everything you read

ugh...this sort of reinforces what I've often suspected. Many scientists don't seem to have much vision. They get focused on a particular task and develop a kind of tunnel vision. I know this seems like a big generalization, but I notice this in my scientist husband and his engineer father. They're both extremely smart, but when they work on projects around the house (like building a fence, say), they have difficulty adapting to the unexpected, or taking opportunities to improve upon their original plan. They just plow ahead with their original objective in mind even if a better way or more pleasing aesthetic presents itself. Unless someone's around to point it out (like me :-). It's like they can only focus on the plan they set in motion, and tweak things as needed to stay on task and obtain the original objective, even if those tweaks end up with an ugly result. :-)

Many researchers do seem dogmatic. Once they've got some evidence, they just can't be swayed from their hypothesis no matter what happens, unless it's something that builds upon what they already believe. Maybe it's the way they're trained in math etc. Or maybe it's just the way their brains work. Maybe that explains why so many of these studies were found to be flawed? The scientists can only see what they want to see?

penny

<usenethod@...> wrote:

news.nature:"'The abysmal standard of statistical analysis in much of geneticepidemiology is little short of scandalous,' says Balding,professor of statistical genetics at Imperial College London, UK, whowas not involved in the study. 'This paper reveals an entire industryof prominently reported results that are largely unjustified andprobably mostly false.' " Ioannidis and his colleagues at the University of IoanninaSchool of Medicine in Greece evaluated 432 claims in 77 researchpapers (N. Patsopoulos et al. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 298, 880-893; 2007).The team applied a set of criteria to determine whether the papers'authors had performed the correct analysis, such as comparing likewith like, and had taken steps to show that the association was notdue to chance."Worryingly, only 12.7% of claims satisfied these criteria. "There isquite a gap between what should have been done and what the journalsand reviewers should have asked for, compared with what the authorsdid," says Ioannidis."