Scientific data should not be suppressed.
“Research spin is when findings are made to look stronger or more positive than is justified by the study.”
“It is bad enough that EPA and ATSDR intentionally and cynically manipulate the value their official, “safe” exposure levels for the express purpose of deceiving the general public and keeping the fear alive.
From the great John Ioannidis.
“Provides principles to improve the conduct and interpretation of quantitative science.”
‘Irreproducible’ research is more often due to error than misconduct or fraud, but fighting it is vital.
“Widespread failure to reproduce research results has triggered a crisis of confidence in research findings, eroding public trust in scientific methodology. In response, PLOS Biology is launching on January 4th, 2016, a new Meta-Research Section devoted to research on research.”
Implausible results from the use of invalid methods.
JunkScience.com has been right for 17.5 years!
Ron Arnold writes in the Washington Examiner:
The authors of this study shrink from describing bias in science as “willful fraud” — we don’t.
“A statistically significant departure from an assumed-to-be-true null hypothesis is by itself no proof of anything. Likewise, failure to achieve statistical significance at the .05 or other stipulated level is not proof that nothing of importance has been discovered.”
Pat Michaels writes in the Washington Times:
While this article is targeted at the pharmaceutical, nutriceutical and dietary supplement industries, it could just as well be applied to the junk science techniques of environmentalists, chemophobes and food nannies.
“Now, what does this look like in the real world? BPA is a great example.”
As pointed out in Junk Science Judo, mice aren’t little people.
Defense of dope smoking brings out epidemiological skeptics. And why wouldn’t these criticisms also be true for the lead-IQ claims?
I’m surprised the figure is that low.
“It’s true. This extremely scientific graph proves it:”
A response in the Financial Times to “Scientific advance did not create most technologies.”
Republican Rep. Darrell Issa is sponsoring a bill with New York Democrat Carolyn Maloney to make “taxpayers who already paid for… research… to pay again to read the results.”
A letter in the Financial Times makes a good point.
“When news broke this year that Diederik Stapel, a prominent Dutch social psychologist, was faking his results on dozens of experiments, the fallout was swift, brutal and global.”
Perhaps journals should require “replicate first” rather than “retract later.”
JunkScience.com has been saying (and proving) this for 15+ years.