> Summary > A recent study claimed small cash transfers to the parents of newborns improved their babies’ brain activity. The study was lauded in the media and

> Summary > A recent study claimed small cash transfers to the parents of newborns improved their babies’ brain activity. The study was lauded in the media and by D.C. policymakers who argued its results supported redistributive policies, most notably the child tax credit. > Closer inspection of the baby brainwaves study reveals its claims to be wildly overstated and its methodology to be suspect, as is common for policy relevant social science. > Authors Troller-Renfree et al. committed numerous bad research practices, including: > Deviating from their analysis plan, and justifying it by referencing studies that did not support and even contradicted their results. > Highlighting results obtained through typically unimportant methodological decisions that weren’t preregistered. > Ignoring that larger and more prolonged interventions typically generate smaller effects than they found, meaning their results were likely due to chance or error. > Looking beyond the study in question, the theoretical and empirical basis it claims to build upon is largely a house of sand. The evidence that is purported to show a link between brain waves and cognitive outcomes is extremely weak, and most interventions seeking to improve cognitive ability in children have small to nil effects. > Despite its inconclusiveness, the study was portrayed as relevant to child tax credit policy, vigorously promoted in media outlets like Vox and The New York Times, and championed by think tanks and policymakers. > These issues are not unique to the baby brainwaves study. Social scientists frequently engage in questionable research practices and exaggerate the strength and implications of their findings. Policymakers capitalize on low-quality social science research to justify their own agendas. This is particularly true when it comes to research that claims to improve cognitive and behavioral outcomes. > Thus, we ought to be skeptical of social scientists’ ability to reliably inform public policy, and of policymakers’ ability to evaluate social-scientific research objectively, particularly when it is “policy relevant.”