3 ms·

Yeah, I don't really get that part either. Prematurity is something that is itself heavily studied; prematurity with crack seems like the logical thing to stud

• jasonlotito 13y ago
  > prematurity with crack seems like the logical thing to study It is a logical thing to study, and most likely is being studied, by someone else. After all, this study wasn't looking at premature babies. That doesn't prematurity with crack isn't a problem, only a different problem.
  • jlgreco 13y ago
    My issue is less with what the experiment studied and more with how it was summarized (particularly by the headline).
• sophacles 13y ago
  Except... How do you know which effects come from crack + premature without subtracting out just premature and just crack?
  • jlgreco 13y ago
    Designing experiments in this area is not my expertise, but my inclination would be "study premature babies with and without crack" You could also simply study premature babies in general, and then study why crack seems to cause more premature babies. I imagine somebody who is actually in this field would not have much trouble designing experiments to study premature "crack babies". Premature babies are something they chose not to study, not something that cannot be studied.