This email arrived at a very opportune time. Some time ago, I had read about the work on John Ioannidis at Stanford who wrote about the statistical unreasonableness of research results. Now I am deep in a book - "Science Fictions" - that explores the whole subject of bad research, fraud, bias etc. There is also some discussion of how invalid results are detected. If you don't mind shattering your last fragment of trust in research results, I thoroughly recommend the book.
Thanks for the thinking and info, Roger. Substack has made your ruminations more accessible, which is good for all of your allies and co-conspirators.
Credibility isn’t an ordinary word. A while back I wrote a piece about Gina McCarthy in which I discuss the examples of the one-eyed politics of EPA in McCarthy’s era; I also detailed where and when the EPA and McCarthy lost their credibility to many of their peers.
Duke submitted falsified and/or fabricated data for 30 different Grants, 2006-2018.
Duke is a private university located in Durham, North Carolina. Duke receives millions of dollars in funding from NIH and the EPA for hundreds of grants each year. The settlement resolves allegations that between 2006 and 2018, Duke knowingly submitted and caused to be submitted claims to the NIH and to the EPA that contained falsified or fabricated data or statements in thirty (30) grants, causing the NIH and EPA to pay out grants funds they otherwise would not have. Specifically, the United States contends that the results of certain research related to mice conducted by a Duke research technician in its Airway Physiology Laboratory, as well as statements based on those research results, were falsified and/or fabricated.
In my world, the media is actually a main player in hyperinflating certain views and ignoring scientific consensus.. in pursuit of unknown (possibly partisan political) goals..
Very good analysis of this situation! Thank you.
Alas, this has been a big problem around COVID, where a number of "studies" were motivated by politics and not based at all on science.
Examples: https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/disputed-hydroxychloroquine-study-brings-scrutiny-to-surgisphere-67595
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2012415117
https://www.justfactsdaily.com/famed-bangladesh-mask-study-excluded-crucial-data
This email arrived at a very opportune time. Some time ago, I had read about the work on John Ioannidis at Stanford who wrote about the statistical unreasonableness of research results. Now I am deep in a book - "Science Fictions" - that explores the whole subject of bad research, fraud, bias etc. There is also some discussion of how invalid results are detected. If you don't mind shattering your last fragment of trust in research results, I thoroughly recommend the book.
Articles like this one are why I subscribe to THB. Well done.
Thank you!
Thanks for the thinking and info, Roger. Substack has made your ruminations more accessible, which is good for all of your allies and co-conspirators.
Credibility isn’t an ordinary word. A while back I wrote a piece about Gina McCarthy in which I discuss the examples of the one-eyed politics of EPA in McCarthy’s era; I also detailed where and when the EPA and McCarthy lost their credibility to many of their peers.
Duke submitted falsified and/or fabricated data for 30 different Grants, 2006-2018.
Duke is a private university located in Durham, North Carolina. Duke receives millions of dollars in funding from NIH and the EPA for hundreds of grants each year. The settlement resolves allegations that between 2006 and 2018, Duke knowingly submitted and caused to be submitted claims to the NIH and to the EPA that contained falsified or fabricated data or statements in thirty (30) grants, causing the NIH and EPA to pay out grants funds they otherwise would not have. Specifically, the United States contends that the results of certain research related to mice conducted by a Duke research technician in its Airway Physiology Laboratory, as well as statements based on those research results, were falsified and/or fabricated.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/duke-university-agrees-pay-us-1125-million-settle-false-claims-act-allegations-related
In my world, the media is actually a main player in hyperinflating certain views and ignoring scientific consensus.. in pursuit of unknown (possibly partisan political) goals..
https://forestpolicypub.com/2022/08/09/another-fuel-treatment-hit-piece-billions-in-feds-spending-on-megafire-risks-seen-as-misdirected/
Agreed, I see this a lot