New Stanford Institute To Target Bad Science

ananyo writes "John Ioannidis, the epidemiologist who published an infamous paper entitled 'Why most published research findings are false', has co-founded an institute dedicated to combating sloppy medical studies. The new institute is to focus on irreproducibility, waste in science and publication bias. The institute, called the Meta-Research Innovation Centre or METRICS, will, the Economist reports, 'create a "journal watch" to monitor scientific publishers' work and to shame laggards into better behaviour. And they will spread the message to policymakers, governments and other interested parties, in an effort to stop them making decisions on the basis of flaky studies. All this in the name of the centre's nerdishly valiant mission statement: "Identifying and minimising persistent threats to medical-research quality."'"

Comments

Can't Come Soon Enought

[theshowmecanuck]

This can't come soon enough.

Re:Flashback

[JustOK]

I tried to make a photocopy of it once.

Don’t throw a wet blanket on science

[Theovon]

It’s wrong to publish fabricated or falsified results, and people who do that should be slammed. There are other situations where people are being neglegent or hoping you don’t catch their slight of hand. For instance, there are the innumerable parallel computing papers that use O(N^2) algorithms to show a speedup on a GPU or supercomputer where there exists a serial O(log N) algorithm that runs faster on a PC. (No joke.) All of those sorts of things should be actively retracted.

However, what we don’t want to do is discourage publication of preliminary results that MIGHT be wrong. Honest, legitimate work that gets superceded should not be subject to retraction, and a wrong theory published can often inspire others to do a better job. When a researcher can say, “That was our best hypothesis at the time, and this was the most accurately we could represent the data,” then it should stand as a legitimate publication. Relativity and quantum mechanics supercede Newtonian physics, but that doesn’t mean we should retract everything Newton said.

Now, most people reading this will say “duh!” Because that’s obvious. All I’m saying is that we need to be careful to not create an environment where publication of preliminary work is discouraged in any way or where honest mistakes can hurt the career of an honest researcher. That would put a damper on science in general. The bar for retraction should be very high and require solid evidence of intentional wrongdoing.

Re:Don’t throw a wet blanket on science

[gstoddart]

For instance, there are the innumerable parallel computing papers that use O(N^2) algorithms to show a speedup on a GPU or supercomputer where there exists a serial O(log N) algorithm that runs faster on a PC. (No joke.)

Except that while there might be some problems which have O(log N) solutions as well as O(N^2) solutions, there are still things which still only have O(N^2) solutions, correct?

So if you can learn how to solve a known O(N^2) problem better (even if there is a known O(log N) solution), what you learn is still applicable to to other O(N^2) problems for which there isn't a known O(log N) solution.

I'm not sure what you're describing is evidence of malfeasance, or that they're working on solving a class of solution, and not necessarily that specific problem.

To me it sounds more like they're probably aware of the O(log N) solution, but that's irrelevant because they're looking at how to use parallelism to address things which are O(N^2), because there's many many of those.

So much of math comes down to solving an equivalent problem you already know how to solve.

Maybe they're figuring out how to address a problem which is O(N^2) by one method, so that once they know how to solve it faster with parallelism, they can learn how to solve other problems which nobody has an O(log N) solution for.

It may not be all about solving that particular problem, but that class of problem. Because mostly it seems like we've never figured out how to do real parallelism except for things which are classed as 'embarassingly parallel' because it already lends itself to breaking it up -- like SETI@Home.

This is where the money is short sighted.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Climatologists have the data - Compelling data.

And yet global warming has turned into this politically charged "issue" that has been created that way by moneyed interests who will not make as much money if certain policies to mitigate GW are implements - they won't lose, just not make as much profit.

What those people don't get, as things get worse - and they will - their interests are now in jeopardy. They will be labeled as the profiteers who paid for propaganda to slow down solutions. They will be labeled as folks who helped keep our heads in the sand and kept this needless "debate" going. Their money will be taken - lawsuits, fines, loss of business because they are liars.

I have one two words for them "Cigarette Industry".

They fought tooth and nail to hide, obfuscate, deny, gloss over, etc ... the truth. And in the end, they REALLY got it in the ass because of their actions.

If they just said up front, "Yeah cigarette smoking will kill you - one way or another - but it's out business and we're supplying what the market wants. And we are more than willing to switch businesses in order to save people and honor our fiduciary duty to our stockholders." they would be in a much better position now.

But they chose to lie and spread propaganda.

I think all of the folks who back anti-global warming propaganda should keep that in mind.

And let's just say that the one in a billion chance that global warming is just one big cock up of the scientific community (The odds are better that I'll win PowerBall 3 times in a row), we'll have cleaner air, water, less dependency on the whims of the international oil market, and our lives will be better - because we choose greener and cleaner energy.

Going with the Global Warming crowd is a win-win from my perspective.

Re:This is where the money is short sighted.

[riverat1]

Is that your idea of science? "My cause is the right one, therefore it shouldn't ever be challenged."

No, if you want to seriously challenge climate science orthodoxy (or any other scientific orthodoxy) you need to put in the work first to really understand the science so you can intelligently challenge it in a scientific manner. Repeating past challenges that have been refuted many times already or not paying enough attention to what the orthodoxy is actually saying so you can address it directly just doesn't cut it.

For example the recent claims of 16 years of no warming. If you analyze the temperature records since 1998 statistically it's impossible to say whether the previous trend has continued unabated or if the trend is 0 increase in temperature. The period is just to short. But that doesn't stop climate science deniers from proclaiming it as evidence for the failure of climate science.

Same thing with the claim that climate models failed to predict the current pseudo-pause. If you understand how climate models work and how the results are presented as an average of many individual model runs you would know that they wouldn't be expected to predict such a short term deviation from the average.

So if you really want to challenge current climate science do the work, understand what the current orthodoxy is and come up with something that does a better job of explaining the evolution of climate. Otherwise it's just a bunch of hot air.

Re:Flashback

[sribe]

Does anyone else remember "The journal of irreproducible results."?

The Inheritance Pattern of Death

Infectious Diseases in Bricks

Behavioral Genetics of the Sidehill Gouger

Golf and the Poo Muscle

Oh, in answer to your question: yes.

Science doesn't work?

[TapeCutter]

Should that be exempt from criticism?

Of course not, however you need more than just vague accusations, how about some actual evidence? Who are these greedy scientists and why do the criticisms sound like a creationist conspiracy theory? Who is paying for this "propaganda", what personal benefit do they gain from convincing people AGW is real? Why are these particular criticisms only raised on particular subjects such as AGW, evolution, and lung cancer? How is it that other scientists such as people hunting exo-planets are never accused of inventing planets "for the grant money"? Could it be because the findings from some branches of science threaten the power and purse of the rich and careless?

Is that your idea of science? "My cause is the right one, therefore it shouldn't ever be challenged."

The "cause" of science it to seek truth knowing you will never attain it. The "cause" of the billionaire neo-luddites is to make sure that critical thinking doesn't catch on with the general public.

securing grants, currying favor from academic mentors, generating press, enlisting public support, and so on.?

What exactly is wrong with any of that, does it not just add up to an ambitious scientist? Is the ambition of seeking the truth a bad thing in your eyes, or do you only see tax dollars going in one end and a "rich scientist" (lol) saying something you don't like coming out the other end?

What about all the pro-global warming propaganda

The pseudo-skeptic's reverse charge of propaganda from scientists is pure nonsense, sensationalism and exaggeration in the press is not "propaganda". Look at the technological wonder of the modern world around you for god's sake, propaganda is more than a mere lie, it a powerful psychological tool that convinces you that despite the futuristic world you find yourself in - (some) Science doesn't work.