Beware those scientific studies -- most are wrong, researcher warns

Yahoo AFP ^ | July 5, 2018

[SMGFan]

Washington (AFP) - A few years ago, two researchers took the 50 most-used ingredients in a cook book and studied how many had been linked with a cancer risk or benefit, based on a variety of studies published in scientific journals.

The result? Forty out of 50, including salt, flour, parsley and sugar. "Is everything we eat associated with cancer?" the researchers wondered in a 2013 article based on their findings.

Their investigation touched on a known but persistent problem in the research world: too few studies have large enough samples to support generalized conclusions.

But pressure on researchers, competition between journals and the media's insatiable appetite for new studies announcing revolutionary breakthroughs has meant such articles continue to be published.

"The majority of papers that get published, even in serious journals, are pretty sloppy," said John Ioannidis, professor of medicine at Stanford University, who specializes in the study of scientific studies.

This sworn enemy of bad research published a widely cited article in 2005 entitled: "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False."

[dadfly]

but the gov’t grant money keeps coming. C.S. Lewis had it right 80 years ago. it’s called “scientism,” and its there to roil and panic common folks while promoting the political agendas of the perpetrators.

[Grimmy]

Since science research began being funded by tax payer monies in the form of grants, universities have been churning out “scientists” at factory piece work rates to take advantage.

[huldah1776]

Only 25% are replicated.

[YogicCowboy]

Peer Review is largely the Royal Priesthood protecting its turf from outside forces and perceived heretics.

Think the SES, a.k.a. Swamp. Power corrupts; it is human nature.

The scientific method is a tool, and a good one, but it is nevertheless limited, and not sentient; it requires objectivity but does not guarantee it.