3 ms·
I absolutely love that this study was accompanied by a FAQ (https://www.thessgac.org/faqs https://www.thessgac.org/faqs). My interpretation of this FAQ is that
by haberman 8y ago
I absolutely love that this study was accompanied by a FAQ (https://www.thessgac.org/faqs https://www.thessgac.org/faqs).
My interpretation of this FAQ is that it provides a great deal of context that would be apparent to people in the field (and therefore not included in the paper itself) but is critical background for anyone else who is trying to make sense of it.
It therefore provides a bridge between the highly technical paper itself and journalism which too often misunderstands the true meaning of research results.
I think this is so valuable. I hope that this kind of thing will catch on for more research that attracts public interest.
- 21 8y agoI think the FAQ has a strong self-defence purpose. See the last question covered, which is probably the first one people care about: > 3.7. Could this kind of research lead to discrimination against, or stigmatization of, people with the relevant genetic variants? If so, why conduct this research?
- dekhn 8y agoI read the entire FAQ. It's gold. Every major paper that makes strong claims should be required to write as much explaining. For example, after reading the FAQ, I understand now that most GWAS papers overstate everything about their findings. The FAQ is much more measured and explicates the severe restrictions on interpreting the findings.