Archive for the 'General Science' Category

Aug 31 2015

The Reproducibility Problem

Published by under General Science

A recent massive study attempting to replicate 100 published studies in psychology has been getting a lot of attention, deservedly so. Much of the coverage has been fairly good, actually – probably because the results are rather wonky. Many have been quick to point out that “science isn’t broken” while others ask, “is science broken?”

While many, including the authors, express surprise at the results of the study, I was not surprised at all. The results support what I have been saying in this blog and at SBM for years – we need to take replication more seriously.

Here are the results of the study:

We conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available. Replication effects (Mr = .197, SD = .257) were half the magnitude of original effects (Mr = .403, SD = .188), representing a substantial decline. Ninety-seven percent of original studies had significant results (p < .05). Thirty-six percent of replications had significant results; 47% of original effect sizes were in the 95% confidence interval of the replication effect size; 39% of effects were subjectively rated to have replicated the original result; and, if no bias in original results is assumed, combining original and replication results left 68% with significant effects. Correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams.

Continue Reading »


25 responses so far

Aug 07 2015

Industry Conflicts of Interest

Published by under General Science

This is an old issue but seems to have been heating up in the last decade – concern over ties between academia and industry. The concern is legitimate, but often overblown, and can easily be abused to justify an unfair witch hunt.

A Nature article published yesterday discusses a recent round of accusations against scientists who support the technology of genetic modification. Before I discuss this article directly, let me give some background.

There is the potential for useful and productive collaboration between industry and academia. Academics are the experts and they have knowledge and resources that could benefit industry. Meanwhile, to put it simply, industry has the money. They can fund research, labs, and educational programs. Academics often survive on meager pay, living grant to grant.

Continue Reading »


15 responses so far

Jul 31 2015

GMOs and Making Up Your Own Science

Published by under General Science

Dedicated anti-science groups engage in a number of methods to maintain their propaganda upstream against the scientific evidence. It’s actually not difficult- people are generally very good at motivated reasoning. We can demonize or lionize anything.

Methods include dismissing scientific studies whose conclusions you don’t like, supporting low quality studies you do like, misinterpreting and distorting other studies, and of course cherry picking. Sometimes, however, dedicated activists seem to literally make up studies out of whole cloth, or ideological scientists perform dubious studies to create fodder for their side.

This week on the SGU we interview Kevin Folta (the show will be published tomorrow) about some of his experiences with anti-GMO activists who have no problem making up the science to advance their ideological agenda. The more I look into anti-GMO activism the more I realize that the anti-vaccine movement has nothing on them when it comes to pseudoscience. Their methods are identical. The only real difference is that anti-GMO propaganda is much more mainstream.

Continue Reading »


10 responses so far

Jul 27 2015

Artificially Selected Organisms

Published by under General Science

A new petition to demands mandatory labeling for all “artificially selected organisms.” The petition says:

ASO plants or animals have had their genetic makeup altered to exhibit traits that are not naturally theirs. Artificial selection (or selective breeding) involves the selection of traits that are beneficial to humans, not what helps the organism survive in nature.

And concludes:

80% of Americans support mandatory labels on food containing DNA.

That last bit is true. A survey performed by¬†Oklahoma State University Department of Agricultural Economics found that 80.44% of Americans supported “mandatory labels on foods containing DNA.” That puts into perspective public support for mandatory labels on genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The petition is obviously satire, and I think it represents the perfect use of satire – putting into sharp relief the illogic of a specific position or claim. This is a fight that happens almost every time a GMO supporter argues with a GMO critic. It goes something like this:

Continue Reading »


18 responses so far

Jul 06 2015

The New Seralini Study

Published by under General Science

Seralini, author of the infamous study alleging to show increased rates of tumors in rats fed GM food, the one that was retracted by the journal and then later republished in a separate journal, has published another controversial study.

The study, published in PLOSone, looks at the feed that is fed to lab rodents, the kinds used in GM research. They found:

All diets were contaminated with pesticides (1-6 out of 262 measured), heavy metals (2-3 out of 4, mostly lead and cadmium), PCDD/Fs (1-13 out of 17) and PCBs (5-15 out of 18). Out of 22 GMOs tested for, Roundup-tolerant GMOs were the most frequently detected, constituting up to 48% of the diet.

The implication is that all prior research looking at GMO and pesticide toxicity is now called into question because the control rodents would also have been fed a diet that contains some GMO, pesticides, and also heavy metal contaminants. The concept here is valid – control groups need to be proper controls. If you are testing the effects of a pesticide on rats, and the control rats are also getting the pesticide in their food, then the comparison is compromised. This would dilute out the effects of the test substance by increasing the background rate of tumors and other negative outcomes, the “noise” in the study. This would further mean that studies would have to be more powerful (contain more subjects in each group) in order to detect the diluted signal.

Continue Reading »


11 responses so far

Jun 30 2015

Lessons From GM Wheat Failure

Published by under General Science

So-called “whiffy wheat” was genetically modified to release a pheromone that repels aphids. The obvious purpose of this modification was to reduce pests without the need for insecticides, and thereby reduce insecticide use.

The trait worked well in the lab. The wheat released sufficient amounts of a warning pheromone that aphids release when attacked. The pheromone both warns aphids to stay away, and also attracts predators, such as a parasitic wasp. The pheromone was derived from the peppermint plant.

The laboratory success meant the wheat was ready for field trials where the GM crop is put to the test in close to real world conditions. The results of those field trials were just published, and unfortunately they showed that the new trait essentially didn’t work – the aphids were not significantly decreased compared to controls, nor was yield increased.

Continue Reading »


9 responses so far

Jun 16 2015

The Debate over Nutrition Research

Can you recall everything you ate yesterday, including those little snacks you snuck, with reasonably accurate estimates of amounts? How about two days ago? Most people, it turns out, have a hard time recalling with good fidelity their recent food intake, or they have a hard time reporting it accurately not only because of the fallibility of memory but because of biases and denial.

Despite this, a great deal of nutrition research is based upon subjects recalling and accurately reporting what they ate. A recent article in Mayo Clinic Proceedings by Edward Archer et al challenges the legitimacy of this research. They write:

The reliance on M-BMs to inform dietary policy continues despite decades of unequivocal evidence that M-BM (memory-based dietary assessment methods ) data bear little relation to actual energy and nutrient consumption.

This is pretty damming. They charge that the current dietary guidelines are based upon fatally flawed data. They specifically state that such data is based upon fallible memory, uses data collecting techniques known to promote false recall, cannot be independently verified, and often does not contain objective data on physical activity. They go as far as to call such research an, “unscientific and major misuse of research resources.”

Continue Reading »


16 responses so far

Jun 08 2015

More Quantum Weirdness

Published by under General Science

Science news outlets are reporting:

“It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” lead researcher and physicist Andrew Truscott said in a press release.

What scientific understanding gets distilled down to the public consciousness is important, and that is one of the primary missions of good science news reporting. What is the bottom line, “take-home” message that the average person should walk away with regarding any particular experiment or scientific question. This often requires translating complex technical science into accessible every-day concepts without sacrificing accuracy. Obviously technical detail must be watered down, and doing this without making the result wrong is part of the skill of good science reporting.

One of the pitfalls of science reporting is distilling down a complex scientific concept to something that is cool, engaging, and sensational, but fundamentally wrong or at least highly misleading. The public then latches onto the sensational myth and forever misunderstands the actual science.

That is, I believe, what has happened with quantum mechanics, which is perhaps the most challenging science to explain to a non-technical audience. It’s hard enough for scientists to wrap their minds around, even with a highly technical understanding of what the experiments are actually showing. It seems to me that Truscott is perpetuating the greatest myth about quantum mechanics with a very poor choice of words to characterize what his recent experiment has shown.

Continue Reading »


91 responses so far

Jun 01 2015

Citation Bias – Confirmation Bias for Scientists

Published by under General Science

I’m a big fan of science for many reasons. Not only is the subject matter of science often incredibly interesting, but the process of science seems to work better than any other method humans have developed for knowing about the universe in which we live. Any fair-minded and knowledgeable view of human history cannot avoid this conclusion.

It’s therefore worthwhile thinking about and exploring the science of science itself, what we might call metascience. It is, in fact, a common narrative among skeptics and science communicators that, while science is awesome, it is practiced by biased and flawed humans. The history of science is one of error, bias, and ego that manages to slowly grind toward the truth.

Metascience is as important as metacognition, or thinking about thinking, and I write about both topics often. These are core knowledge-bases for any critical thinking skeptic. Here is a list I compiled of the most important issues with the quality of science. The goal here is not to criticize science, but to improve its practice, make it more efficient, minimize wasted resources, and help the public sift the reliable from the nonsense.

I’m now going to add another important concept to the list – citation bias.

Continue Reading »


3 responses so far

May 29 2015

A Chocolate Science Sting

John Bohannon is at it again. In 2013 he published the results of a sting operation in which he submitted terrible papers with fake credentials to 304 open access journals. Over half of the journals accepted the paper for publication. He published his results in Science magazine, and it caused a bit of a stir, although arguably not as much as it should have.

Bohannon was asked to repeat this feat, this time to expose the schlocky science of the diet industry. He was asked to do this for a documentary film which will be release shortly, but he has already published his reveal. You can read his full account for details, but here is the quick summary.

He collaborated with others to perform a real (although crappy) scientific study. His researchers recruited 16 people, with one drop out, the remaining 15 were divided into three groups: low carb diet for three weeks, low carb diet plus daily chocolate for three weeks, and no change in diet. The results were not surprising in that the two diet groups lost 5 pounds on average, while the no diet group did not. However, they also found that the chocolate group lost 10% more weight. He explains:
Continue Reading »


32 responses so far

Next »