tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4893234962600967689.post8573940525981387107..comments2023-09-02T06:44:22.702-07:00Comments on Wildly Fluctuating: Parsing the Popular PressGretchenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17019921800841883073noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4893234962600967689.post-2126048746835067162015-12-09T13:01:50.003-08:002015-12-09T13:01:50.003-08:00That's like Calvin Trillin saying reporters at...That's like Calvin Trillin saying reporters at Time Magazine added extraneous material to their stories hoping that the editors, who needed to justify their jobs, would delete that and not something important.Gretchenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17019921800841883073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4893234962600967689.post-51565994222784334312015-12-09T11:12:13.747-08:002015-12-09T11:12:13.747-08:00A scientist in a completely different field had a ...A scientist in a completely different field had a good take, he reckoned that while scientists didn't want to lie, neither did they want to lose their research grants, so they learned how to hide their results in plain sight where other scientists could find them but accounting clerks would miss them . . .chris cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4893234962600967689.post-18599503963381449912015-12-04T06:11:42.874-08:002015-12-04T06:11:42.874-08:00Many journalists write articles on the basis of th...Many journalists write articles on the basis of the press releases. And because full text is often behind a paywall and because today's methods are extremely complex and sometimes vague (a "high fat diet" in mice usually means high fat on a background of low-quality carbs) and because journalists aren't given time for a thorough review, it's not surprising that their stories are misleading. <br /><br />We're fortunate that we have bloggers who have the time to drill down in more detail. But some of them come to the research with preconceived ideas, so one has to read their commentary with a grain of salt too.<br /><br />Press releases are usually written by PR people whose job is to make their institutions look good. And of course they always point out that the research suggests where new drugs might help, hoping the investigator will attract interest and grants from big pharma.<br /><br />Getting to the truth isn't easy. It reminds me of the character in one of Solzhenitsyn's novels who read Pravda and tried to ferret out what was really going on by what *wasn't* mentioned.Gretchenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17019921800841883073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4893234962600967689.post-58280625798487108972015-12-04T05:32:44.403-08:002015-12-04T05:32:44.403-08:00I've noticed that there is a heirarchy of dogm...I've noticed that there is a heirarchy of dogma. Even some well done research may have a significant weakening between the Data and the Conclusions (see especially Harvard), the Abstract is a further step away, the Press release hardly describes the same study, and what journalists write in the popular press (including the likes of WebMD) is almost completely disconnected. <br /><br />This works the other way too, often the public commenters have a much greater awareness than the journalist who wrote the original article.<br /><br />When research grants and reputations are at stake, science often takes a back seat. Journalists are divided between sensationalism and supporting the status quo depending on which is more likely to please the advertisers.<br /><br />There's now a critical mass of competent bloggers and commentators who frankly do a much better job than many peer reviewers.chris cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4893234962600967689.post-17257075388173039982015-11-13T13:14:56.216-08:002015-11-13T13:14:56.216-08:00http://emboj.embopress.org/content/34/22/2721
Thi...http://emboj.embopress.org/content/34/22/2721<br /><br />This is a good editorial on the problems of reproducing complex modern research. It's long, but worthwhile. The author mentions the fact that space in journals is limited, so authors often provide only skimpy documentation of Methods. This is certainly true in some nutritional studies, in which they just say that mice were on a high-fat diet without more details.Gretchenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17019921800841883073noreply@blogger.com