Research
An article in this morning’s The Times has reported how errors can affect the findings in scientific studies. Attention to detail is vital, or results are skewed.
Sholto David is a British scientist and blogger with a PhD in cellular and molecular biology. He has achieved recognition for discovering flaws in more than 2,000 studies. Errors have appeared in published papers from universities including Oxford, Cambridge, and Stanford.
Separately, Dr David pointed out anomalies in thirty papers published by the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI). DFCI is a cancer treatment and research centre in Boston, Massachusetts, reputed to be the sixth best cancer hospital in the US.
Sholto David received more than $2.5 million, or 17.5% of the $15 million the institute paid against allegations of violating the False Claims Act (fraud) between 2014 and 2024.
We are told to trust the science but science seems to be an imperfect science in the hands of humans. People such Dr David are very important.
ReplyDeleteThe lesson is always to check. One expects scientists to be rigorous,
DeleteSome morning news is always interesting, whether we believe it is a question. Have a nice day!
ReplyDeleteAlways question.
DeleteIn other words, read everything with your brain in gear and check the sources?
ReplyDeleteQuite so.
DeleteGood on Sholto David for investigating the truth behind statistics that are not always as solid and reliable as they are purported to be. Did you know that 99% of Berkshire housewives prefer men who wear string vests and white Y-fronts? Trump is often spewing out statistics that have no basis in reality.
ReplyDeleteWe're not all looking for Pater Mandelson look-alikes.
Delete*Peter*
DeleteCases like this are a reminder that scientific progress depends not only on groundbreaking discoveries but also on rigorous scrutiny, transparency, and the willingness to challenge findings when the evidence does not stand up to careful examination.
ReplyDeleteExactly so.
DeleteAnd this is exactly why I'm always a bit skeptical of everything I hear or read.
ReplyDeleteVery wise.
DeleteSome people have minds for details. I am not one of those so blessed.
ReplyDeleteScientists should be on top of details, always.
DeleteWe need more Dr. Davids. Badly. Soon we will need a whole army of people to check AI.
ReplyDeleteThat is so true.
DeleteEverything needs to be checked and rechecked these days.
ReplyDeleteIt always needs to be the case when scientific research is involved.
DeleteI think you changed your display? Sorry, I can't read white on dark, the dazzle makes it too hard.
ReplyDeleteApologies.
DeleteI hope Dr David has good security, at home but especially at work.
ReplyDelete😃
ReplyDeleteAnd here's me thinking I'm "the only one" (of course I am not!) to notice when an author gets a minor detail wrong such as in my latest read!
ReplyDeleteIt hardly matters in a novel but it can make a huge difference in a scientific paper. Always, always, always have important stuff checked and proof-read by someone else - you own eyes will only see what they already know to expect, not noticing the typos and other errors.
When I sometimes go back to look at post on my own blog, or even just a comment I have left on someone else's blog, I often find typos that of course I didn't notice when I made them; otherwise I would have corrected them before pressing "PUBLISH".
And sure enough, I wrote "you own eyes" instead of "your own eyes" and "post on my own blog" instead of "posts on my own blog"...
DeleteQuod erat demonstrandum, or something like that.
You are so right. It's so easy to make small mistakes, and usually they don't matter very much. Scientific research is different and should always be peer-reviewed. The worrying thing is that the studies Sholto David looked at must have been reviewed before publication, so what happened?
DeleteThank goodness for our fact checkers! We need an army of them. Applauding Dr. David!
ReplyDeleteCheck, check, and check again.
DeleteThere is way too much sloppy research in our times, never mind the "research" sponsored by drug companies, so of course their drugs get wonderful reviews. Dana-Farber has an excellent reputation. What a shame.
ReplyDeleteWhy is there such sloppiness, though? Why are standards slipping?
DeleteMy daughter's best friend is a research scientist. She was asked to falsify results by a skincare company. She refused, so they took their business elsewhere. Treat those '89% of a sample of 120 women' claims with the contempt they deserve.
ReplyDeleteWell done your daughter's friend. The desire to make money overcomes all sense of ethics for some.
DeleteEverything has to be fact checked these days.
ReplyDeleteWe are gradually losing our critical faculties, I fear.
Deleteoh wow, what an interesting job that must be - lucrative too!
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it, it's something Sholto David undertook independently.
DeleteThat doesn't even surprise me.
ReplyDeleteIt's sad that we are no longer shocked so much by such things.
DeleteSometimes the editors are sleeping.
ReplyDeleteThey need to wake up before serious damage is done.
DeleteSo many things do not get rigorously tested so this is really important!
ReplyDeleteEven in playing well known pieces of music that have been around for a hundred years or so, there are often errors in the copyist who wrote it out!
Lapses of concentration are natural, and that is why research should be reviewed by more than one person.
DeleteStatistics can somehow be so malleable. The devil is always in the details....
ReplyDeleteAre we losing our critical faculties?
DeleteGoodness. That is shocking. xx
ReplyDeleteIt's appalling.
ReplyDeleteEverything needs to be checked and double checked ... and now of course AI is in the picture ... who checks that!?
ReplyDeleteAll the best Jan
There will be a new discipline, if there isn't already, of AI checkers!
ReplyDelete