I read the report as stating that there is a rewards structure built into our academic and research institutions that almost guarantees that studies are designed so that the rejection of the null hypothesis is assured and that findings of no difference are not published.
This is pretty much the same conclusion that report after report has found. Those reports also found a de-emphasis on research that adds depth to our information base as compared to those that are testing very narrow hypothesis. Given that rewards structure, why would anyone expect that replicated testing would be done? John Gerlach ________________________________ From: malcolm McCallum <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, May 16, 2012 6:55:58 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Sarewitz on Systematic Error Hard to believe they let this statement make it into publication... "A biased scientific result is no different from a useless one. Neither can be turned into a real-world application." Especially after just a few lines earlier they state... "Bias is an inescapable element of research, especially in fields such as biomedicine that strive to isolate cause–effect relations in complex systems in which relevant variables and phenomena can never be fully identified or characterized. " In other words, the anti-research/anti-academic/anti-intellectual crowd can now grab these two sentences, misquote them and indicate that a paper in science just stated that RESEARCH IS A WASTE OF TIME BECAUSE IT NEVER HAS ANY REAL WORLD APPLICATION!!!! It would be great if a paper criticizing errors in others' work actually read their work carefully! :) (that is a tongue in cheek comment by the way). This entire commentary is actually a criticism of our lack of replication by multiple researchers. When a study comes out, it needs to be reinvestigated by others, not just accepted. Take a landmark paper, hand it to an MS student and have them redo the study and then add a follow up twist. This is simply not done enough today. On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Matt Chew <[email protected]> wrote: > Everyone should take a minute to read this Nature 'world view' piece. >http://www.nature.com/news/beware-the-creeping-cracks-of-bias-1.10600?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20120515 >5 > > Matthew K Chew > Assistant Research Professor > Arizona State University School of Life Sciences > > ASU Center for Biology & Society > PO Box 873301 > Tempe, AZ 85287-3301 USA > Tel 480.965.8422 > Fax 480.965.8330 > [email protected] or [email protected] > http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php > http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew -- Malcolm L. McCallum Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry School of Biological Sciences University of Missouri at Kansas City Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - Allan Nation 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth w/o work Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character Commerce w/o morality Science w/o humanity Worship w/o sacrifice Politics w/o principle Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
