http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/science/new-truths-that-only-one-can-see.html?ref=science&_r=0
QuoteParadoxically the hottest fields, with the most people pursuing the same questions, are most prone to error, Dr. Ioannidis argued. If one of five competing labs is alone in finding an effect, that result is the one likely to be published. But there is a four in five chance that it is wrong. Papers reporting negative conclusions are more easily ignored.
Putting all of this together, Dr. Ioannidis devised a mathematical model supporting the conclusion that most published findings are probably incorrect.
Other scientists have questioned whether his methodology was skewed by his own biases. But the same year he published another blockbuster, examining more than a decade's worth of highly regarded papers — the effect of a daily aspirin on cardiac disease, for example, or the risks of hormone replacement therapy for older women. He found that a large proportion of the conclusions were undermined or contradicted by later studies.
His work was just the beginning. Concern about the problem has reached the point that the journal Nature has assembled an archive, filled with reports and analyses, called Challenges in Irreproducible Research.
Among them is a paper in which C. Glenn Begley, who is chief scientific officer at TetraLogic Pharmaceuticals, described an experience he had while at Amgen, another drug company. He and his colleagues could not replicate 47 of 53 landmark papers about cancer. Some of the results could not be reproduced even with the help of the original scientists working in their own labs.
Science is messy and nobody wants to admit it because we are all waiting for the techno messiah to save us from our self inflicted problems.
Nigel, I think the conversation you were remembering was whether peer review was a good control on the science community, yes?
Quote from: whenhellfreezes on January 22, 2014, 10:08:50 PM
Science is messy and nobody wants to admit it because we are all waiting for the techno messiah to save us from our self inflicted problems.
Thank you for your time.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 22, 2014, 10:12:28 PM
Nigel, I think the conversation you were remembering was whether peer review was a good control on the science community, yes?
That may well have been it.
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 22, 2014, 10:31:32 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 22, 2014, 10:12:28 PM
Nigel, I think the conversation you were remembering was whether peer review was a good control on the science community, yes?
That may well have been it.
The problem I have is this:
Either we face reality and admit that there are some huge problems, thus giving the religious nutjobs all kinds of ammunition, or we stick our heads in the sand and pretend nothing is wrong.
Of course, we have to do the former, or at least examine the hell out of it, but the temptation to do the latter is huge. And now I know why the scientific community can be very reactionary.
How do you propose people face reality en masse without totally losing their shit?
The way I see it, the problems will mount for a good long while yet, actual real advances are coming but they're still heavily outnumbered by the latest shiny electronic crap - now in blue! - by a lot. Consider the speed of actual advancement humans achieved when focused. WW2 gave us nuclear power and the space age.
WW3 - Cold fission and FTL? The survivors will likely need both.
Anyway, It's fucking scary the implications have on actual medicine. How far are treatments developed before found to be dud?
QuoteGiven what is at stake, it seems like a moral failing that the titles of the papers were not revealed. That was forbidden, we're told, by confidentiality agreements imposed by the labs.
I'd suggest that they have a moral obligation to break that agreement. There's literally lives at stake.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 22, 2014, 10:39:14 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 22, 2014, 10:31:32 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 22, 2014, 10:12:28 PM
Nigel, I think the conversation you were remembering was whether peer review was a good control on the science community, yes?
That may well have been it.
The problem I have is this:
Either we face reality and admit that there are some huge problems, thus giving the religious nutjobs all kinds of ammunition, or we stick our heads in the sand and pretend nothing is wrong.
Of course, we have to do the former, or at least examine the hell out of it, but the temptation to do the latter is huge. And now I know why the scientific community can be very reactionary.
We should hide frank scientific discussion in gay porno magazines.
Quote from: whenhellfreezes on January 22, 2014, 11:14:40 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 22, 2014, 10:39:14 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 22, 2014, 10:31:32 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 22, 2014, 10:12:28 PM
Nigel, I think the conversation you were remembering was whether peer review was a good control on the science community, yes?
That may well have been it.
The problem I have is this:
Either we face reality and admit that there are some huge problems, thus giving the religious nutjobs all kinds of ammunition, or we stick our heads in the sand and pretend nothing is wrong.
Of course, we have to do the former, or at least examine the hell out of it, but the temptation to do the latter is huge. And now I know why the scientific community can be very reactionary.
We should hide frank scientific discussion in gay porno magazines.
HURRR HURRR HURRR
Dumbfuck.
Well yes. And it's always been like this. The amazing Paul Feyerabend had this covered in 1975. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method) It really does highlight the religious character of the ruling ideology of our age, naive scientism.
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 22, 2014, 10:01:58 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/science/new-truths-that-only-one-can-see.html?ref=science&_r=0
QuoteParadoxically the hottest fields, with the most people pursuing the same questions, are most prone to error, Dr. Ioannidis argued. If one of five competing labs is alone in finding an effect, that result is the one likely to be published. But there is a four in five chance that it is wrong. Papers reporting negative conclusions are more easily ignored.
Putting all of this together, Dr. Ioannidis devised a mathematical model supporting the conclusion that most published findings are probably incorrect.
Other scientists have questioned whether his methodology was skewed by his own biases. But the same year he published another blockbuster, examining more than a decade's worth of highly regarded papers — the effect of a daily aspirin on cardiac disease, for example, or the risks of hormone replacement therapy for older women. He found that a large proportion of the conclusions were undermined or contradicted by later studies.
His work was just the beginning. Concern about the problem has reached the point that the journal Nature has assembled an archive, filled with reports and analyses, called Challenges in Irreproducible Research.
Among them is a paper in which C. Glenn Begley, who is chief scientific officer at TetraLogic Pharmaceuticals, described an experience he had while at Amgen, another drug company. He and his colleagues could not replicate 47 of 53 landmark papers about cancer. Some of the results could not be reproduced even with the help of the original scientists working in their own labs.
Well, fuck. *Gets out rum bottle*.
Quote from: Junkenstein on January 22, 2014, 10:53:34 PM
QuoteGiven what is at stake, it seems like a moral failing that the titles of the papers were not revealed. That was forbidden, we're told, by confidentiality agreements imposed by the labs.
I'd suggest that they have a moral obligation to break that agreement. There's literally lives at stake.
...I think so too...
Quote from: Junkenstein on January 22, 2014, 10:53:34 PM
How do you propose people face reality en masse without totally losing their shit?
The way I see it, the problems will mount for a good long while yet, actual real advances are coming but they're still heavily outnumbered by the latest shiny electronic crap - now in blue! - by a lot. Consider the speed of actual advancement humans achieved when focused. WW2 gave us nuclear power and the space age.
WW3 - Cold fission and FTL? The survivors will likely need both.
Anyway, It's fucking scary the implications have on actual medicine. How far are treatments developed before found to be dud?
QuoteGiven what is at stake, it seems like a moral failing that the titles of the papers were not revealed. That was forbidden, we're told, by confidentiality agreements imposed by the labs.
I'd suggest that they have a moral obligation to break that agreement. There's literally lives at stake.
Intellectual property. NDA's, copyright... It's kinda funny and cute when the entertainment industry does it but science? No! Everything owned must be stolen. Everything secret must be exposed. There's more at stake here than shiny paper and the illusion of power :argh!:
Quote from: whenhellfreezes on January 22, 2014, 10:08:50 PM
Science is messy and nobody wants to admit it because we are all waiting for the techno messiah to save us from our self inflicted problems.
Science is not messy as fuck, science is ordered and has gaps. Known and ordered gaps. There is no techno messiah or magic bullet to solve the worlds problems instead we have slow advancements that allow further advancements.
Quote from: Faust on January 23, 2014, 04:30:24 PM
Quote from: whenhellfreezes on January 22, 2014, 10:08:50 PM
Science is messy and nobody wants to admit it because we are all waiting for the techno messiah to save us from our self inflicted problems.
Science is not messy as fuck, science is ordered and has gaps. Known and ordered gaps. There is no techno messiah or magic bullet to solve the worlds problems instead we have slow advancements that allow further advancements.
Where's that like button when I need it?
Quote from: Junkenstein on January 22, 2014, 10:53:34 PM
How do you propose people face reality en masse without totally losing their shit?
The way I see it, the problems will mount for a good long while yet, actual real advances are coming but they're still heavily outnumbered by the latest shiny electronic crap - now in blue! - by a lot. Consider the speed of actual advancement humans achieved when focused. WW2 gave us nuclear power and the space age.
WW3 - Cold fission and FTL? The survivors will likely need both.
Anyway, It's fucking scary the implications have on actual medicine. How far are treatments developed before found to be dud?
QuoteGiven what is at stake, it seems like a moral failing that the titles of the papers were not revealed. That was forbidden, we're told, by confidentiality agreements imposed by the labs.
I'd suggest that they have a moral obligation to break that agreement. There's literally lives at stake.
Wellllll... maybe. Sorta. Most of these one-of-a-kind results are basically research dead-ends that will never lead to anything in particular, so the risk is actually relatively low.
Like most research, if you look at each individual published paper. Science still manages to be self-correcting.
Quote from: whenhellfreezes on January 22, 2014, 11:14:40 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 22, 2014, 10:39:14 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 22, 2014, 10:31:32 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 22, 2014, 10:12:28 PM
Nigel, I think the conversation you were remembering was whether peer review was a good control on the science community, yes?
That may well have been it.
The problem I have is this:
Either we face reality and admit that there are some huge problems, thus giving the religious nutjobs all kinds of ammunition, or we stick our heads in the sand and pretend nothing is wrong.
Of course, we have to do the former, or at least examine the hell out of it, but the temptation to do the latter is huge. And now I know why the scientific community can be very reactionary.
We should hide frank scientific discussion in gay porno magazines.
A better place for frank scientific discussion would be the legislators offices.
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 24, 2014, 01:13:51 AM
Quote from: whenhellfreezes on January 22, 2014, 11:14:40 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 22, 2014, 10:39:14 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 22, 2014, 10:31:32 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 22, 2014, 10:12:28 PM
Nigel, I think the conversation you were remembering was whether peer review was a good control on the science community, yes?
That may well have been it.
The problem I have is this:
Either we face reality and admit that there are some huge problems, thus giving the religious nutjobs all kinds of ammunition, or we stick our heads in the sand and pretend nothing is wrong.
Of course, we have to do the former, or at least examine the hell out of it, but the temptation to do the latter is huge. And now I know why the scientific community can be very reactionary.
We should hide frank scientific discussion in gay porno magazines.
A better place for frank scientific discussion would be the legislators offices.
There is a joke in there somewhere.
I'm not sure I could even think of a sane policy choice that the legislators could do to help here though. More funding maybe be better. Though I'm not sure if more money would help the broken dynamic with grants. Dance for your NSF grant monkeys, Dance.