Nobel Winner Dings Nature and Science Mags

Good news from Nobel Prize winner Dr. Randy Schekman.

Important news:

Fred Singer told Joe Bast about Schekman’s declaration, and Joe provides the nice commentary here below.

Joe Bast, writer, editor, Exec of Heartland Inst., Chicago.

Randy Schekman says his lab will no longer send papers to Nature, Cell and Science as they distort scientific process

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals

Bast Commentary:

This article reveals that leading scientists know that the “prestige” academic journals are biased in favor of flashy and politically correct research findings, even when such findings are frequently contradicted by subsequent research. This is important in the context of the global warming debate because Nature and Science have published the most alarmist and incredible junk on global warming and refuse to publish skeptics. (Full disclosure: Nature ran a negative editorial about us a few years back and a much better but still inaccurate feature story.) Claims of a “scientific consensus” rely heavily on the assumption that expertise can be measured by how often a scientist appears in one of these journals. Now we know that’s a lie.

Along these lines, I highly recommend a 2010 book titled “Wrong: Why Experts Keep Failing Us – And How to Know When Not to Trust Them,” by David H. Freedman, “a science and business journalist… contributing editor at Inc. magazine and has written for The Atlantic, Newsweek, NYT, Science, HBR, Fast Company, Wired, Self, and many other publications.”

He says experts can be wrong because…
1. Pandering to audience or client
2. Lack of oversight
3. Automaticity (assuming every problem has the same solution)
4. Flawed evidence (rely on other scientists for data)
5. Careerism (publish or perish, never admit mistakes)
6. Publication bias
7. Confounding variables
8. Conflicts of interest

He says we believe experts because we are predisposed to embrace people who espouse….
1. Certainty (absence of doubt)
2. Simple explanations (never more than three causes)
3. Universality (these factors/processes/principles apply to everything!)
4. Upbeat (good news)
5. Actionable (we can fix this)
6. Palatable solutions (we can afford to fix it)
7. Dramatic finding or insight (wow factor)
8. A compelling narrative (connects the dots)
9. Consensus (everyone believes this!)

Some excerpts from the book:

“In an anonymous survey conducted by Martinson and his colleagues and published in Nature in 2005, and responded to by some 3,200 researchers who had received funding from the National Institutes of Health, about one-third of participants admitted to at least one act of misconduct with regard to designing, conducting, interpreting, and reporting the results of studies within the previous three years. (pp. 106-7)

“In a 2000 survey of bio-statisticians, half said they personally knew of research studies that involved fraud, and of that group, about half went on to say that the fraud involved the fabrication of falsification of data.” (p. 107)

“…researchers need to publish impressive findings to keep their careers alive, and some seem unable to come up with those findings via honest work. Bear in mind that researchers who don’t publish well-regarded work typically don’t get tenure and are forced out of their institutions.” (p. 108)

“Perhaps more important, tenured researchers still have to bring in research funding, and the pressure to do so often considerably increases with tenure, since senior researchers sometimes have to take most of the responsibility for getting entire labs funded.” (p. 109)

“Back in 1989 economists at Harvard and the National Bureau of Economic research estimated that virtually all published economic papers are wrong, attributing this astoundingly dismal assessment to the effects of publication bias.” (p. 112)

“If a scientist wants to or expects to end up with certain results, he will likely achieve them, often through some form of fudging, whether conscious or not – bias exerts a sort of gravity over error, pulling the glitches in one direction, so that the errors tend to add up rather than cancel out.” (p. 114)

“Nature quoted the Princeton professor, Nobel laureate, and former Bell Labs researcher Philip Anderson as saying, ‘Nature’s editorial and refereeing policy seems to be influenced by the newsworthiness of the work, not necessarily its quality. and Science seems to be caught up in a similar syndrome.” (p. 119)

“Does the scientific community do anything effective to single out lousy research? Actually, yes – it makes sure that some of the worst research gets the most acclaim.” (pp. 122-23)

“Research by Dickers in and others suggests that on average positive studies are at least ten times more likely than negative studies to be submitted and accepted for publication.” (p. 123)

And Joe’s favorite:

“Many liberals, on the other hand, seem constitutionally incapable of giving fair consideration to, or in some cases even acknowledging, expert evidence and arguments (even if in the minority) that question whether we are really in the midst of a man-made global climate crisis.” (p. 78)

Nice comments from Joe.

Dr. Shekman is the real deal, just like Feynman.

The truth be told? I think so. Not enough said about the bias of the big journals and how they lack integrity and honesty.

Medical Journals, as another category of science publication, allow politically charged nonsense too much. For example the New England Journal of Medicine and Journal of the American Medical Association are too easy for EPA sponsored research based on weak epidemiology.

As an example, the published nonsense from the Samet air pollution crowd should never make it past the first layer of review since it invariably violates the the rules on causation and plausibility for observational epidemiological studies.

My goodness it’s about time some people start protesting on our favorite topic–junk science.

About these ads

11 responses to “Nobel Winner Dings Nature and Science Mags

  1. You’re getting sloppy Steve! Were you late for lunch when you finished typing this story? “… the pubblished nonsense…” and “… violates the the rules …” This type of editing oversight is becoming *very* common in web articles. I hope you will ‘buck the trend’ in the future!
    God Bless…

    • my fault, not watching the corrrections highlights.

      thanks for point out. will try to be a better boy.

      John Dale Dunn MD JD Consultant Emergency Services/Peer Review Civilian Faculty, Emergency Medicine Residency Carl R. Darnall Army Med Center Fort Hood, Texas Medical Officer, Sheriff Bobby Grubbs Brown County, Texas 325 784 6697 (h) 642 5073 (c)

    • the article was a hybrid and pasted as received, and when I opened it in edit, it didn’t highlight pubblished.

      However, usually when I look back I get a good highlight for any mistakes or oversights, unless it’s a word the sneaks in as spelled right phonetically but the wrong word to use.

      My experience is that happens when my brain is off and the fingers are still moving on the keys. I am not as good as I should be–keep making the red marks. Hope the content is not disappointing.

      I read a lot of on line stuff and you are right–a lot of things get missed–too much volume, too little time to check and correct.

      John Dale Dunn MD JD Consultant Emergency Services/Peer Review Civilian Faculty, Emergency Medicine Residency Carl R. Darnall Army Med Center Fort Hood, Texas Medical Officer, Sheriff Bobby Grubbs Brown County, Texas 325 784 6697 (h) 642 5073 (c)

  2. Thanks for the work, John. Paid or not (don’t know), I appreciate your time and energy. While grammar and spelling are pet peeves of mine too, at times, I can easily forgive such quibbles if the content remains as good as it’s been. So accept the good grace of your readers.
    Have a blessed Holyday season.

    • I do my work for free, actually Steve and I have been friends and colleagues for years, I just moved some of my private small groups posting or whatever you want to call it, to the JunkScience.com site.

      I have found a group of interesting and well informed people. Very invigorating.

      Thanks for your interest and participation. JunkScience and Milloy have been important to me for 15 years or so, and I learned a lot from reading Milloy’s books.

      John Dale Dunn MD JD Consultant Emergency Services/Peer Review Civilian Faculty, Emergency Medicine Residency Carl R. Darnall Army Med Center Fort Hood, Texas Medical Officer, Sheriff Bobby Grubbs Brown County, Texas 325 784 6697 (h) 642 5073 (c)

    • And Merry Chistmas/Happy New Year/Happy Holydays to you too. I include happy Chanukah, since I have a special place in my heart for the Jews, who have endured so much and given much to make our world better.

      John Dale Dunn MD JD Consultant Emergency Services/Peer Review Civilian Faculty, Emergency Medicine Residency Carl R. Darnall Army Med Center Fort Hood, Texas Medical Officer, Sheriff Bobby Grubbs Brown County, Texas 325 784 6697 (h) 642 5073 (c)

  3. Thanks designed for sharing such a good opinion, paragraph is nice,
    thats why i have read it completely

    • thanks, thurman. i went to high school in prairie du chien at a boarding school that is now a prison–beautiful place at the junction of the Wisconsin and Mississippi. Long time ago and far away–50 year reunion this year.

  4. I blog frequently and I truly thank you for your information.

    This great article has truly peaked my interest. I will book mark
    your site and keep checking for new information
    about once per week. I opted in for your RSS feed as well.

  5. This is a great tip especially to those new to the blogosphere.
    Simple but very accurate info… Thanks for sharing this one.
    A must read post!

  6. I’ve been browsing online more than three hours today, yet I never found any interesting article like yours.
    It’s pretty worth enough for me. Personally, if all
    webmasters and bloggers made good content as you did, the
    net will be much more useful than ever before.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s