3 ms·

"The problem lies entirely at the feet of the media." No, not entirely. You assume scientists are objective and have no agenda. A lot of research is "sponsored

by jazzyk 11y ago

"The problem lies entirely at the feet of the media." No, not entirely. You assume scientists are objective and have no agenda. A lot of research is "sponsored" by corporate interests. The first paragraph one should read in a research report is the "source of funding" disclosure, then adjust for bias (or ignore entirely).

michaeltoth 11y ago
Scientists are also incentivized by the publishing system to find noteworthy results, which often leads to finding evidence where there is none, especially in fields like nutrition where the signal to noise ratio is so low
- jacobr1 11y ago
  Or just as common but perhaps more misleading: results in isolation. Even with solid protocols and methods plenty studies, say with rat models, have a very limited factor they are testing, and identifying if there is an impact compared to a control. Unfortunately the baseline model parameters might have a huge impact on any difference observed. Like say diet prior to the study. Or genetics other than what was modified for the study. Or any number of similar things. Changing a single variable in a complex, non-linear, non-closed system with doesn't necessarily generalize to other conditions. So even good studies can mislead until they've been replicated and many variants attempted and some underlying mechanism identified.
TheCraiggers 11y ago
Very true, and in fact I had "almost entirely" there for a brief moment. Although I'd like to offer the counter-argument that journalists should be listing known agendas and funding sources that may create biases when reporting on these stories. That's their job. I know it's an idealist pipe-dream, but to me a journalist's highest calling is reporting on corruption and corporate shenanigans exactly like that. So yes, this is more of a shared problem, but the media has let us down here, too.
- jazzyk 11y ago
  "journalist's highest calling is reporting on corruption and corporate shenanigans" I agree, but that ship has sailed a while ago :-( Traditional, corrupt and/or click-baity journalism is slowly being replaced by guerilla news sites (such as Drudge, ZeroHedge, etc.), but I am not aware community-driven scientific paper review sites (i have not been looking much, though)

by jazzyk 11y ago

michaeltoth 11y ago

Scientists are also incentivized by the publishing system to find noteworthy results, which often leads to finding evidence where there is none, especially in fields like nutrition where the signal to noise ratio is so low

jacobr1 11y ago
Or just as common but perhaps more misleading: results in isolation. Even with solid protocols and methods plenty studies, say with rat models, have a very limited factor they are testing, and identifying if there is an impact compared to a control. Unfortunately the baseline model parameters might have a huge impact on any difference observed. Like say diet prior to the study. Or genetics other than what was modified for the study. Or any number of similar things. Changing a single variable in a complex, non-linear, non-closed system with doesn't necessarily generalize to other conditions. So even good studies can mislead until they've been replicated and many variants attempted and some underlying mechanism identified.

TheCraiggers 11y ago

Very true, and in fact I had "almost entirely" there for a brief moment. Although I'd like to offer the counter-argument that journalists should be listing known agendas and funding sources that may create biases when reporting on these stories. That's their job. I know it's an idealist pipe-dream, but to me a journalist's highest calling is reporting on corruption and corporate shenanigans exactly like that. So yes, this is more of a shared problem, but the media has let us down here, too.

jazzyk 11y ago
"journalist's highest calling is reporting on corruption and corporate shenanigans" I agree, but that ship has sailed a while ago :-( Traditional, corrupt and/or click-baity journalism is slowly being replaced by guerilla news sites (such as Drudge, ZeroHedge, etc.), but I am not aware community-driven scientific paper review sites (i have not been looking much, though)