Most Science Studies Tainted by Sloppy Analysis

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Check out Videos

Most Science Studies Tainted by Sloppy Analysis 252

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Tuesday September 18, 2007 @11:22AM
from the devil-is-in-the-details dept.

mlimber writes "The Wall Street Journal has a sobering piece describing the research of medical scholar John Ioannidis, who showed that in many peer-reviewed research papers 'most published research findings are wrong.' The article continues: 'These flawed findings, for the most part, stem not from fraud or formal misconduct, but from more mundane misbehavior: miscalculation, poor study design or self-serving data analysis. [...] To root out mistakes, scientists rely on each other to be vigilant. Even so, findings too rarely are checked by others or independently replicated. Retractions, while more common, are still relatively infrequent. Findings that have been refuted can linger in the scientific literature for years to be cited unwittingly by other researchers, compounding the errors.'"

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Most Science Studies Tainted by Sloppy Analysis

Search 252 Comments Log In/Create an Account

Comments Filter:

Oh yea baby... (Score:3, Funny)

by Pojut (1027544) writes: on Tuesday September 18, 2007 @11:24AM (#20654241) Homepage

They can study my taint anytime they want. /Karma

twitter facebook linkedin
Here it comes... (Score:4, Funny)

by Penguinisto (415985) writes: on Tuesday September 18, 2007 @11:25AM (#20654253) Journal

Insert politically charged science topics, point to 'em as examples, and launch into a stupid flamefest over it all in 3... 2... 1...
/P

twitter facebook linkedin
Re:How is this news? (Score:5, Funny)

by Leftist Troll (825839) writes: on Tuesday September 18, 2007 @11:29AM (#20654349)

How can we even trust this study?

After all, studies show that most studies are wrong.

twitter facebook linkedin
What About this Study? (Score:5, Funny)

by sarahbau (692647) writes: on Tuesday September 18, 2007 @11:30AM (#20654351)

How do we know the study that shows that most studies are tainted isn't tainted?

twitter facebook linkedin
According to my research (Score:4, Funny)

by Archangel Michael (180766) writes: on Tuesday September 18, 2007 @11:30AM (#20654375) Journal

According to my research, most studies involve about 84% error rate due to flawed statistical analysis caused by people pulling statistics out of their arse. The other 16% are flawed due to NOT actually pulling statistics out of their arse.

twitter facebook linkedin
Slashdot taints article study finds (Score:4, Funny)

by packetmon (977047) writes: on Tuesday September 18, 2007 @11:34AM (#20654467) Homepage

The secret is out! Investigators are looking into whether or not millions of scientists have been using modified versions of SCIgen [mit.edu] for their work. The FBI and Department of Termpaper Security have acknowledged the investigation but declined to speculate on the alleged ties between SCIgen and grammar terrorists citing a new law just passed by pResident Bush which allows warrantless underwear tapping.

Authorities are also investigating the connections between Malda, Bush Laden, Bill Gates, Dvorak and Borat [mit.edu] SCIgen is a program that generates random Computer Science research papers, including graphs, figures, and citations. It uses a hand-written context-free grammar to form all elements of the papers. Our aim here is to maximize amusement, rather than coherence.

twitter facebook linkedin
o the irony (Score:4, Funny)

by Anonymous Coward writes: on Tuesday September 18, 2007 @11:34AM (#20654475)

/. commentors commenting on sloppy submission about sloppy analysis

pot, meet kettle

twitter facebook linkedin
Double checked (Score:3, Funny)

by Edward Ka-Spel (779129) writes: on Tuesday September 18, 2007 @11:37AM (#20654547)

I just read the article and checked his statistics. He did his numbers wrong.

twitter facebook linkedin
Re:How is this news? (Score:5, Funny)

by mh1997 (1065630) writes: on Tuesday September 18, 2007 @11:51AM (#20654857)

"We all know..." What are you basing this on??? As a postdoc, I've committed myself to a massive amount of work and I'm certainly not doing it for pay (which is meager), but a LITTLE amount of respect would be nice. I've published a few studies and it was incredibly hard work to do the kind of careful science that gets published. A small amount of scandals and people like you who swallow any sensationalist piece of news out there really cast things in an unfair light. I encourage you to read more scientific literature and actually try and understand how the scientific process works. Do you really think we live in the kind of technological age as we do in spite of "a good portion of all studies" being "bogus" or "based on nothing"? I find this incredibly insulting.
It's a well known fact that 42% of all statistics are made up, and that over 70% of studies use these false statistics. Therefore, 89% of all studies are flawed.
You'd think a postdoc would have known this.

twitter facebook linkedin
Re:How is this news? (Score:2, Funny)

by Garridan (597129) writes: on Tuesday September 18, 2007 @12:13PM (#20655351)

Well, of course you can trust it, since somebody can verify this independantly. ;)

twitter facebook linkedin
yeah but... (Score:2, Funny)

by Kelexel (1158529) writes: on Tuesday September 18, 2007 @12:19PM (#20655465)

[Speaking to self...]
A scientific study published that most scientific studies are wrong... therefore there is a good change of it being wrong.... Which means that most scientific studies are right... But if most studies are right then this one is also right... which means...
c.. an.. t take .... this...
[Head explodes]

twitter facebook linkedin
I'm sorry (Score:3, Funny)

by Sloppy (14984) writes: on Tuesday September 18, 2007 @12:54PM (#20656185) Homepage Journal

I won't analyze again.

twitter facebook linkedin
Summary (Score:3, Funny)

by slapout (93640) writes: on Tuesday September 18, 2007 @01:03PM (#20656371)
So, to sum it up for the Slashdot audience:
- Global warming isn't happening
- Pluto IS a planet
  and
- Han shot first
twitter facebook linkedin
Re:So you lied about reading the articles? (Score:2, Funny)

by AKAImBatman (238306) writes: <{moc.liamg} {ta} {namtabmiaka}> on Tuesday September 18, 2007 @02:45PM (#20658299) Homepage Journal

So stop being such a pompous asshole, you are dumber than you realize.

Pot meet kettle.

twitter facebook linkedin

There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

Most Science Studies Tainted by Sloppy Analysis 252

Most Science Studies Tainted by Sloppy Analysis More Login

Most Science Studies Tainted by Sloppy Analysis

Oh yea baby... (Score:3, Funny)

Here it comes... (Score:4, Funny)

Re:How is this news? (Score:5, Funny)

What About this Study? (Score:5, Funny)

According to my research (Score:4, Funny)

Slashdot taints article study finds (Score:4, Funny)

o the irony (Score:4, Funny)

Double checked (Score:3, Funny)

Re:How is this news? (Score:5, Funny)

Re:How is this news? (Score:2, Funny)

yeah but... (Score:2, Funny)

I'm sorry (Score:3, Funny)

Summary (Score:3, Funny)

Re:So you lied about reading the articles? (Score:2, Funny)

Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.

Slashdot