4 ms·

They made a hypothesis and conducted a study to validate it. Perhaps they are wrong. Would be far from the first time studies are proven wrong. At least they di

by pacala 6y ago

They made a hypothesis and conducted a study to validate it. Perhaps they are wrong. Would be far from the first time studies are proven wrong. At least they did something. Make a better study. Make a hundred better studies. Prove them wrong!

fao_ 6y ago
I think the user is referring to the conflict of interest and the lack of interest in proper ethical conduct by one of the co-authors. If they won't follow generally accepted ethical guidelines, what other rules will they ignore or bend?
- pacala 6y ago
  The conflict of interest part is fair. The "Note that the senior author Bhattacharya and of course Ionnadis were advancing this theory before data collection began" is not. That's how science is done: you advance a theory, then you conduct experiments to validate / invalidate the theory.
  - strangeloops85 6y ago
    It's one thing to advance a theory in academic papers during normal times. It's another to pen widely-read op-eds advancing said theories in the middle of a pandemic. Their theory and op-eds have already, and are, influencing policy - and it's clear they want to influence policy. Hence, it merits more scrutiny than the average study. These results are being used by policymakers to make decisions - skepticism and criticism is most definitely warranted. I'm in no position to conduct studies, though I am certainly doing things in my wheelhouse to help. Other studies will clear up matters, but results may be weeks away. And these results may be used to end quarantines in the intervening time.
  - mediaman 6y ago
    I think there's a difference between postulating a hypothesis, and then testing it, which is what I believe you're referring to, versus going around advocating a particular position as being true and then "testing" it. When people are strong advocates of a particular position, they tend to find ways to design or process experimental data in ways that support that position. The ways in which bias can seep into the experiment are not always easy for outsiders to see. So it comes down to whether their "advancing this theory" went beyond what a reasonable scientist would do in postulating a hypothesis that needs testing.
ineedasername 6y ago
It's not just a matter of conducting a study and "perhaps they are wrong". If it can be shown that their study made unreasonable assumptions, and there was a conflict of interest, then any conclusions drawn from the study need to be taken with a grain of salt. When a primary researcher in the study has a financial interest in a specific outcome, it is at best a poorly designed study, and should be suspect. When the author has, prior to actually collecting data, advanced a desire to influence policy as if the results were a foregone conclusion, that is a problem.
fhnuzoag 6y ago
They made a hypothesis and conducted a study that cannot falsify their hypothesis, even if repeated a hundred times.

by pacala 6y ago

fao_ 6y ago

I think the user is referring to the conflict of interest and the lack of interest in proper ethical conduct by one of the co-authors. If they won't follow generally accepted ethical guidelines, what other rules will they ignore or bend?

pacala 6y ago
The conflict of interest part is fair. The "Note that the senior author Bhattacharya and of course Ionnadis were advancing this theory before data collection began" is not. That's how science is done: you advance a theory, then you conduct experiments to validate / invalidate the theory.
- strangeloops85 6y ago
  It's one thing to advance a theory in academic papers during normal times. It's another to pen widely-read op-eds advancing said theories in the middle of a pandemic. Their theory and op-eds have already, and are, influencing policy - and it's clear they want to influence policy. Hence, it merits more scrutiny than the average study. These results are being used by policymakers to make decisions - skepticism and criticism is most definitely warranted. I'm in no position to conduct studies, though I am certainly doing things in my wheelhouse to help. Other studies will clear up matters, but results may be weeks away. And these results may be used to end quarantines in the intervening time.
- mediaman 6y ago
  I think there's a difference between postulating a hypothesis, and then testing it, which is what I believe you're referring to, versus going around advocating a particular position as being true and then "testing" it. When people are strong advocates of a particular position, they tend to find ways to design or process experimental data in ways that support that position. The ways in which bias can seep into the experiment are not always easy for outsiders to see. So it comes down to whether their "advancing this theory" went beyond what a reasonable scientist would do in postulating a hypothesis that needs testing.

ineedasername 6y ago

It's not just a matter of conducting a study and "perhaps they are wrong". If it can be shown that their study made unreasonable assumptions, and there was a conflict of interest, then any conclusions drawn from the study need to be taken with a grain of salt. When a primary researcher in the study has a financial interest in a specific outcome, it is at best a poorly designed study, and should be suspect. When the author has, prior to actually collecting data, advanced a desire to influence policy as if the results were a foregone conclusion, that is a problem.

fhnuzoag 6y ago

They made a hypothesis and conducted a study that cannot falsify their hypothesis, even if repeated a hundred times.