Positive Bias Could Erode Public Trust In Science

ananyo writes "Evidence is mounting that research is riddled with positive bias. Left unchecked, the problem could erode public trust, argues Dan Sarewitz, a science policy expert, in a comment piece in Nature. The piece cites a number of findings, including a 2005 paper by John Ioannidis that was one of the first to bring the problem to light ('Why Most Published Research Findings Are False'). More recently, researchers at Amgen were able to confirm the results of only six of 53 'landmark studies' in preclinical cancer research (interesting comments on publishing methodology). While the problem has been most evident in biomedical research, Sarewitz argues that systematic error is now prevalent in 'any field that seeks to predict the behavior of complex systems — economics, ecology, environmental science, epidemiology and so on.' 'Nothing will corrode public trust more than a creeping awareness that scientists are unable to live up to the standards that they have set for themselves,' he adds. Do Slashdot readers perceive positive bias to be a problem? And if so, what practical steps can be taken to put things right?"

Comments

Feelings are more important than science

[Gothmolly]

Right? isn't that what American schools and TV have been teaching for the last 30 years? Nerds aren't cool - facts are open to interpretation - everyone is special - you can eat more than you grow... When you have a society rewarding irrationality, what do you expect? Rigorous science?

Re:Feelings are more important than science

[r1348]

We still are, it's just the definition of "fit" has shifted since when we started creating the environment we live in.

Also, I personally don't miss the "good old times when we were all starving".

Re:Feelings are more important than science

[AwesomeMcgee]

I wonder how many of these "positive bias" results come from the fact that if you publish results that disagree with the bias of those who are paying for the study, they'll probably ensure it's never published and you'll find yourself no longer running studies on their dollars.

In the tech industry we all deal with non-technical managers who drive the technical direction and often times define the message to the clients. Does science suffer the same unskilled managerial types pushing scientists to interpret results in a particular way perhaps?

I have a hard time believing a professional scientist doesn't know how to apply the scientific method, but then again incompetence is rampant in every other industry I guess, why not the scientific one..

Re:Feelings are more important than science

[ArcherB]

Right? isn't that what American schools and TV have been teaching for the last 30 years? Nerds aren't cool - facts are open to interpretation - everyone is special - you can eat more than you grow... When you have a society rewarding irrationality, what do you expect? Rigorous science?

Considering that I'm done growing, if I didn't eat more than I grow, I'd die of starvation.

Re:Feelings are more important than science

[Rakishi]

Here's the thing, there are no enlightened few. There's just a few equally irrational people whose irrationality makes them think they are rational and all knowing.

Re:Feelings are more important than science

[danbuter]

Sadly, in many cases, it's other scientists that are causing the problems. Back when I was in college, my Geology professor was trying to publish a paper that would have invalidated the results of an older study. Unfortunately for him, the major Geology magazines all used a similar pool of professors who were "experts" on that particular topic. One of those reviewers was the geologist whose work was being overturned. Let's just say that my professor's work was shot down quite quickly. (He did get it published, but in a smaller magazine, that honestly has little impact in the field).

Re:Feelings are more important than science

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

And humans do ? I must say that while a certain form of organisation is present in cities, only very few cities looked like any global design was done at all in them. When it comes to organisation essentially done by individual humans : animals have plenty of "local" organisation like humans ... take the tunnel structure below molehills for example. This is aside from huge projects like the hoover dam. But most things humans build are much more like the massive organic changes animals cause just as much as humans do.

Besides, humans are not unique in having big infrastructure projects. Ants is the most common example of an animal that organises itself into building huge structures on cue. So do apes. Nothing quite the scale of Hoover dam of course, but the difference is a scale difference, not intent or organisation or even intelligence.

Re:Feelings are more important than science

[grep_rocks]

Mod me down or whatever but I think you really got it wrong - one party is for an elite or aristocracy based on financial wealth, they spend a lot of money on ads TV networks etc. to get a majority to vote in favor of the aristocracy, lower taxes on the rich less restrictions on the use of capital, less labor laws, less environmental regulation - i.e. freeehdum! the other party is a bit more disorganized and is probably more easily defined as the not-moneyed elite, but they still have to produce leaders and they tend to be more technocratic - so for example one party puts an oil executive as head of the dept of energy, the other put in a nobel prize winning physicist

Wow! I guess Science HAS become a religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuff' said

Re:Wow! I guess Science HAS become a religion

[AwesomeMcgee]

Science is a method dingbat, anyone who puts faith in a scientist however is practicing demagoguery.

Practice science, not demagoguery.

Wait, what?

[bmo]

'Nothing will corrode public trust more than a creeping awareness that scientists are unable to live up to the standards that they have set for themselves,' he adds.

No, the corrosion of public trust is the incessant idiocy coming from Fox and other Murdoch properties exclaiming "oh those silly scientists got it wrong again!" when the story is about a refinement of a model or something.

Scientists are losing the credibility war because scientists are not PR flacks and are unable to counteract the "we don't have to report actual news, we got a court order saying we don't" assholes at Fox.

There is a concerted effort to discredit scientific research no matter what it is.

--
BMO

Re:Wait, what?

[SteelKidney]

Or the hordes of bloggers, forum commenters, and internet shills claiming that "This is absolutely, unalterably correct and anybody entertaining even reasonable skepticism is an IDIOT".

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yes, blame it all on fox, the ultimate evil in the universe. It has nothing to do with studies being published making lavish claims which are then later proved false, or so wildly overblown that it's almost embarrassing. Of course, the conduct of the scientists themselves couldn't possibly be at fault and it must all be an even republican conspiracy.

Grow up, pull your head out of your ass, and realize that fox and republicans aren't the only source of evil in the world.

Re:Wait, what?

[gandhi_2]

This is a story about actual bias in scientists which is affecting the quality of their research.

And you completely gloss over that to take issue with Fox, which is no more ore less biased than msnbc, et al...
Look, people seek an echo chamber. "News" companies of all types just supply the demand.

I suppose YOU don't see a problem with some news organizations taking biased scientific output and unquestioningly running with it as though it were the concrete truth for ever more.

Re:Wait, what?

[jo_ham]

angry much?

Damn right scientists are angry. The pervasive anti-intellectualism and well-funded attacks on science to suit political ends are getting ridiculous. Positive bias in peer review is a problem that needs to be addressed, but it is all part of science - studies that cannot be replicated are examined in detail and their models either rejected or refined to be tested again. Just because something is published does not make it "the truth" - it means it is a set of conclusions based on experiments that were done by a particular team of scientists. If it's not repeatable then future publications will say so - that's how the back and forth and refining of models happens. Things don't get held back until the issue is "settled" then get published, it simply doesn't work like that.

Where things start to fall down (and where the anti-science folk with an agenda have such an easy time) is that it can be hard for the layman to sort out what to trust in a scientific publication, since the well-hammered, repeated-by-many-groups stuff is sitting alongside single publications claiming XYZ based on PQR from a single data set in a single research group. It's so easy to wade in there and say "look at this! see! scientists can't agree! it's all a big con to get more money! they'll say anything to further their agenda!".

Again, I'm not dismissing the problems of positive bias - it's a factor of peer review and the way human beings approach the reporting of science, but the job is made much harder by a barely-science-literate blogosphere working full steam to discredit anything they can to make it look like there's some sort of global conspiracy of scientists working against the general public in whatever field the propaganda machines are working against. Climate change is clearly the biggest one at the moment, but it's not restricted to that. There's almost anything related to things that challenge fossil fuels and energy research towards energy independence, then there's anything in the biology field relating to stem cells, vaccinations, pharmaceuticals, etc.

The rise of public opinion that science is somehow something to be regarded with great suspicion and that scientists are actively working against the public good is not only troubling, it's highly counterproductive. It's time we started getting angry about it, it's just almost impossible to fight back - scientists are not equipped to do so against a highly organised and well funded group of individuals who do that sort of character assassination and propaganda for a living.

Re:Wait, what?

[thegreatemu]

While I agree that models are frequently refined, leading to new results, there is a disturbing trend I see, not having to do with positive bias necessarily, but with uncertainty estimation.

One thing that I've found incredibly hard to beat into undergrads taking my physics lab courses is that getting your uncertainties (or error bars) right is far more important than getting the right central value. This is because uncertainties are the only way that two experiments can be compared against each other, or the only way to compare experiment to theory. If I have two models of climate change, one of which predicts a temperature rise of 3 C ± 5% and another that predicts 4 C ± 7%, those results are in large disagreement, whereas two studies that predict 20 C ± 15% and 40 C plusmn 35% are in much closer agreement.

But I see it seems much more frequently, especially in fields like astronomy, too little thought goes into the systematic uncertainties, and you'll get 4 experiments measuring the same thing with results that cannot be reconciled if you take their statistics at face value. This was a huge problem with many of the early global warming predictions as well; every year a new estimation would come out that was completely incompatible with the previous one. Yes, these models are insanely complicated, and it's damn hard to understand all the systematics. And of course you can't put in error bars for plain old mistakes. But do it too many times, and people begin to lose any faith that your estimates can be relied on for anything.

This is the problem I see; not necessarily bias toward a positive result, but a bias toward underestimating the uncertainty of your measurement, which I suppose could be different sides of the same coin. (E.g., a result of 2 ± 0.1 is a positive result; a result of 2 ± 5 is not!).

Re:Wait, what?

[bmo]

I would suggest it all started with Al Gore and Global Warming

You would be wrong and not only that, but without a sense of history at all. I can just point out Senator William Proxmire's (D, btw) "golden fleece award" given to the Aspen Movie Map with regards to "hurr, we don't understand the tech so we must be getting scammed" to Sarah Palin's bitching about silly "fruit fly experiments...hurr, we don't need those" - which comes from a long line of idiots decrying basic science, because their minds are *that* blinkered.

Never mind that the fruit fly experiments are all about genetics because fruit flies have lifespans of ... fruit flies so it makes heritability easier to study. Never mind the fact that the Aspen Movie Map was groundbreaking and you can now look back at it and say "Gee, I wonder where Google got their idea for Street View." But no, you don't hear about that. You hear on Fox that fruit fly studies are just wasting taxpayer money. Because Sarah Palin said so. Because she's such an expert in genetics. *spit*

Then the whole Climategate thing that showed the primary movers of AGW to be complete jerks and thoroughly unlikeable people.

So? It was found to be nothing more than egos. The science itself wasn't discredited, and has only strengthened since then. And I have voiced my opinions here about how badly I thought that it was being handled and my own strong skepticism about AGW in previous years. But you know what, I have recently (as in the past couple of years) found that the anti-AGW crowd to be increasingly full of *real* integrity problems and conflicts of interest.

Back to basic science:

Here's a clue for you and your buddies: You don't get applied science and engineering and fancy new products without basic science.

--
BMO

Re:Wait, what?

[jo_ham]

And there's jerks like you who claim that anyone who dare look askance at your work are "anti-intellectual" are are too stupid to sort out what to trust in a scientific publication (are you saying that scientific publications, Nature, et. al. have untrustworthy material in it?)

Ah, classic twisting of my words. I'm talking about anti-intellectualism as a movement. Those doing it are extremely smart - that's what makes them good at it. They're good at duping people into following their cause. I am not personally calling individual people stupid unless they actually demonstrate that they are.

And yes, I'm absolutely saying that scientific publications contain untrustworthy information, including the big hitters like Science and Nature - their size and prestige is no assurance of infallibility, and in fact can work against them since people are often reluctant to question them. That's the nature of scientific publishing - until results have been replicated, single-source experiments and models need to be looked at with extreme skepticism.

Last year I performed some work that disproved a piece of published literature (in a non-controversial area of chemistry). I didn't set out to disprove it - I set out to see if I could replicate the results and I determined that the published paper was incorrect. My own conclusions, method and data set were published in response, with some discussion on why the previous paper was drawing incorrect conclusions (mainly an issue with experimental control). My situation is one that is repeated constantly - it's how science works. The stuff that can't be replicated is corrected, the stuff that is replicated becomes more solid.

It's not the layman's fault that they don;t understand some of the intricacies of how peer review and scientific publishing and research works. They're not stupid for not getting that in the same way that I'm not stupid for not understanding the first thing about programming - it's simply not my area of expertise. Where the stupidity *does* arise, however, is when people start to distrust scientists out of hand because they're being told to do so by certain media outlets or special interests. It happened with vaccinations due to a corrupt doctor manipulating a very weak study with the ultimate aim to push a competing vaccine made by a company that paid him off, but it backfired spectacularly - far from getting the competing vaccine popular, people rejected vaccination entirely against their own interests, putting their own and everyone else's kids at more risk. It's this sort of media frenzy and associated public panic and distrust of science (even now, people refuse to believe scientists on the issue, despite the original study being totally debunked and Wakefield himself being struck off the medical register et and the whole thing exposed as a sham).

That's the sort of thing I'm talking about here. We saw it with the MMR vaccine, we see it with nuclear power, we see it with stem cell research, we see it with GM foods (and there *are* some legitimate issues to be raised there, being drowned out by typical media hysteria), we see it with climate science - again, there are legitimate issues to be raised and discussed on a topic that is *gigantic* in scope in the scientific community, but it's being drowned in so much media hysteria and political propaganda that it's almost impossible to get anything done.

Of course, equating people who don't drink your Kool Aid to those who deny the Holocaust really helps your cause to be seen as our nights in shining armor.

Where did I say that? You're dangerously close to Godwining the thread by trying to imply that I brought that up when I did no such thing. The hyperbole serves no one, it only makes your arguments look weak.

I'm not looking to be anyone's "night [sic] in shining armor", nor are most scientists. We just work on the science in our field and go where that leads us. If we wanted to be knights rescuing people I'd have joined the fire service or something. I became a scientist to ultimately help mankind and further our collective knowledge, but I'm no superhero or white knight.

Re:Wait, what?

[MightyMartian]

Questioning is one thing, but wholesale declarations that the large majority of climatologists are liars or fools is another. What's more it's an old tactic developed by the Creationists in their attacks on evolution; declarations of a cabal of biologists out to hide the truth blah blah blah.

You act as if consensus is a bad thing. Do you think evolution is false because the overwhelming majority of biologists accept it? Do you think General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is wrong because the overwhelming majority of physicists accept it? I'll wager you don't, but because AGW says "We keep vomiting vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere we're going to screw things up royally", which interferes with your short-term self interest, well, it must be false.

data point

[Anonymous Coward]

I received my PhD in physics, and the thesis was measuring a number, in which I measured zero within the error bar. Not particularly interesting, but valid science. My wife was in a PhD program in Biology, she also did valid science, novel measurement technique, came up with an uninteresting result, therefore was not able to publish, therefore was unable to graduate. It would have been extremely simple to fudge the result to a 2-3 sigma result 'hinting' at an interesting answer, which would have gotten published. I think certain sciences have gotten to a point where they have forgotten that if you do valid work in a novel way, then that is science and you should not be punished for the conclusion of the measurement. Most measurements you do of the natural world should probably end up being unsurprising, and thus uninteresting, but you don't graduate or get tenure with those kinds of results. I think this is the mechanism for the positive bias. That is why I do not take results from certain branches of science at face value.

Re:data point

[spiffmastercow]

This. Until we start giving PhDs for finding expected results and/or verifying the results of others, we're going to have this problem of research 'exageration'.

Re:data point

[Anonymous Coward]

Original commenter here:

It shouldn't be in the highest tier journals, but should be able to be published somewhere so people can find the technique and that someone had done the measurement, with result x. And if the idea and methodology is sound, it shouldn't prevent someone from getting a PhD. But it does. And it filters out a lot of people who would choose to publish results that do not further their own career, as well as filtering in people willing to do things like playing with how they cut their data until the results start looking interesting. (it does not even require faking data, just someone willing to stop looking for ways to cut out 'bad' data when the results start looking interesting.)

Re:data point

[AwesomeMcgee]

If it's valid good science it speaks to the competency of the individual who practiced it, if we aren't graduating these folks, then we're encouraging graduation of incompetent or sensationalist scientists.

Of course it is a problem

[tp1024]

The solution lies in a reformation of research finance that is not focussed on how many papers X published compared to Y, but also takes into account whether they are consequential or not and if they actually comply with at least basic scientific attributes such as repeatibility, verifiablity, falsifiability, accessibility of all data and all conducted research, as well as actually conducted verification of research by independent third parties.

There should also be an outright condemnation of data mining, where data bases are checked only for the existence of attributes and correlations that happen to affirm the researchers opinion and leave all others untouched.

Fields like economics, medicine and climate have long since deteriorated to mere cargo cults due to those failings.

Re:There types of articles are moronic.

[jeffmeden]

There are "studies", and then there is observation, modelling, prediction, model testing which is this thing called science. "Studies" are bullshit. Scientific research functions as it should. I believe the OP's article is just a chunck of sensationalist BS, or utterly ignorant of what science is (and is not).

You forgot to mention that it is yet another piece of published work that suffers from positive bias...

Apophenia

[concealment]

When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Anything can become a religion, as a result. We're less critical of our data when that happens, and we "nudge" it into place.

The problem is not "science" per se but our social approach to it.

I left academia and science because of this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Academia is a Ponzi scheme built on fudged statistics, unreported failures and outright forged results.

Unfortunately, Publish or Perish and the overadmission of PhD candidates has resulted in a system where getting a paper out is more important than what goes into the paper.

Positive bias in engineering research

[l00sr]

In engineering research, there is definitely a positive bias; in fact, negative results are rarely published at all. This is both because negative results have less sex appeal than positive results and because peer reviewers are trained to outright reject publications without positive results. Although there is huge pressure to publish positive results, I'm not aware of systemic fraud in the literature. What does happen, however, is roughly this: 1) researcher gets great idea. 2) researcher tries idea. 3) idea fails to produce state-of-the-art results. 4) researcher adds hacks and kludges to marginally improve performance. 5) repeat steps 2-5. So, what you get in the end are journals filled with "positive results" that mean nothing and a bunch of "scientists" who make a living doing things that do not really resemble science at all.

Science comes when results are confirmed

[Geoffrey.landis]

Actually, science is stll working; the real trouble comes with the publicity of the science.

You should never believe the results of any single study. Every scientist knows this; or should know this. Science comes when results are confirmed, not when somebody publishes the first paper. The real work of science just starts when somebody publishes a study saying "we show that x has the effect y." That initial paper really is no more than "here's a place to start looking." However, newspapers want to publish news, and they need to publish whatever's hot and interesting and being done today, not "well, scientist z had his team take a look at the xy phenomenon to see if there was anything interesting there, and they couldn't really find anything there, although maybe some other research lab might have different results."

And, I suppose that somebody should post a link to the obligatory xkcd: http://xkcd.com/882/

Re:Science comes when results are confirmed

[rgbatduke]

Actually, you need to read "The Black Swan" by N. N. Taleb. Science that tries to confirm a theory is already infected with confirmation bias. There are a pile of examples that demonstrate the fallacy of confirmatory inference. Taleb uses a variant of Bertrand Russell's -- a turkey might reasonably infer, based on his daily experience, that humans exist for the sole purpose of feeding him, caring for him, providing for his every need. This might go on for day after day, increasing the turkey's degree of belief in his hypothesis of a good and beneficent humanity filled with love of turkeys, right up to the day that -- ulp -- something unexpected happens.

I'm not a Popperite, rather a Jaynes-Cox-Bayesian, but nevertheless it is important to avoid confounding the relative strength of positive and negative evidence. Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence, yet we almost invariably confound the two.

Taleb damn skippy agrees with you about publicity, however, and the near-criminality of publicity and reporting of science. A newspaper necessarily takes a scientific result or observation and transforms it two ways: First of all, it creates a narrative. It isn't just "a tornado hit Houston", but "a tornado hit Houston, possibly caused by Anthropogenic Global Warming" with the subtext "this isn't an act of nature, random an unpredictable, but is instead our fault". Aztec priests couldn't have come up with a better excuse for ripping the still beating hearts out of a stream of slaves and war captives. Second, it necessarily reduces the complexity of the result to no more than three variables, ideally one. It "Platonifies" it (according to Taleb) -- wraps it up in a pretty, easy to understand package that makes it more predictable, less random than it really was. Global warming is a much simpler "cause" than "A cold front overrunning a warm wet surface layer of air near the ground, creating turbulent rolls that break off and terminate on the ground, sustained and driven by the thermal difference, and it is a better story too.

Sadly, as you point out, real science is all too often (and should be) scientist z looked at something and didn't find much. But what they failed to find and how they looked is actually often as or more important than a study that claims to find something, especially when the latter uses questionable methodology to try to prove something, cherrypicks data (for the same purpose), ignores silent evidence (ditto) etc. Medical science is permeated with this. Nobody gets famous, or rich, or even a job, for looking for a cure for cancer and not finding one. This too is addressed by Taleb. Great book.

rgb

Re:Its also about non-scientists expectations

[cdrguru]

Sorry, but you are asking for something that can be called the "everyone should be at the top" problem. Yes, it would be nice if everyone could understand science, scientific methods and what constitutes the difference between one result and a confirmed, peer-reviewed body of research.

It isn't going to happen that way.

What we need is to stop publishing unconfirmed, preliminary results in popular media. That by itself solves 90% of the problem. So who gets to decide when something is ready for 60 Minutes, Fox and Friends in the Morning or the Today Show? I don't know, but I know it isn't the news media and it should not be the original team reporting some unconfirmed results. Just a rule that says nothing gets copied out of scientific journals until it is marked as having been confirmed by at least one independent team would go a long, long way.