Strangely the paper makes no reference to any correction. Instead stating that, "Traders had equal access to capital and information, and their risk limits wer

Strangely the paper makes no reference to any correction. Instead stating that, "Traders had equal access to capital and information, and their risk limits were determined by their track records." The methods give no further information on any corrections applied: Subjects.During recruitment we approached potential subjects on the trading floor and invited them to participate in the study. They were given an introductory note that explained briefly that we were looking at the effects of prenatal testosterone on the shape of their right hand. No information was given about our hypothesis. Interested traders were informed that they would receive a summary of our findings; they were not offered payment. Of the traders asked to participate, all but 3 agreed. Before giving a handprint, all subjects completed a short questionnaire asking their age, years of trading, P&Lhistory,numberofolderbrothers, and whether they had broken the index or ring finger of their right hand. They also signed an informed consent form. All handprints, questionnaire data, and P&L from the bank were coded by an independent laboratory technician in Cambridge, so our analyses were conducted blindly with respect to the identity of the traders. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Cambridge. Five of the traders volunteering for the study could not be included because they had broken either the index or ring finger of their right hands. From the remaining49 subjects, 2were subsequently excluded because their handprints were of insufficient quality to be assessed, and 3 were excluded because they received a different compensation package from the other traders,making it difficult to compare their P&Ls (although retaining them in the study left all results significant). It would be useful to know how potential subjects were identified though. Were they just the first 52 people they bumped into in the office, randomly selected from the 200 people who work there (would be nice) or was there some pre-screening?