Vox retracts story based on fraudulent research. Vox | The Washington Post | The Huffington Post | “This American Life” | The New York Times | The Wall Street Journal At least five news organizations have re-examined stories based on fraudulent research published in the academic journal “Science” that purported to show people could be swayed to accept same-sex marriage by talking to gay individuals.
The re-evaluations came to light after the research, conducted by scholars Michael LaCour and Donald Green, came under scrutiny by political scientists David Broockman and Joshua Kalla. They found problems with the publication, which was covered by “This American Life,” The New York Times, Vox, The Huffington Post, The Washington Post and others. A Vox.com story by senior correspondent Dylan Matthews published in April 2014 now carries the following retraction: Update: It turns out that the Michael LaCour and Donald Green study described here really was “miraculous”: it wasn’t true.
The Wall Street Journal also followed suit: There’s A Gap Between What The Public Thinks And What Scientists Know. Scientists lament that public opinion on scientific issues is often shaped by fear and ignorance about science.
A new pair of surveys, published Thursday in the journal Science, shows that there is, indeed, a large gap between public opinion and that of scientists on a wide range of scientific topics. The surveys found broad support for government to spend money on science, but that doesn’t mean the public supports the conclusions that scientists draw. The biggest gap between scientists and the public came on issues that may elicit fear: the safety of genetically modified (or GMO) foods (37 percent of the public said GMOs were safe, compared to 88 percent of scientists) and the use of pesticides in agriculture (28 percent of the public said foods grown with pesticides were safe to eat, versus 68 percent of scientists).
There was also disagreement over the cause of climate change (50 percent of the public said it is mostly due to human activity, compared to 87 percent of scientists). Finger length 'not a pointer' for future sexual behaviour. Friday February 6 2015 Finger length is related to hormone levels "How to work out if your partner is cheating on you?
Check their fingers," the Daily Mirror advises. How the Toronto Star massively botched a story about the HPV vaccine — and corrected the record. If there was ever a textbook case in how to botch a health story, the Toronto Star's investigation into the "dark side of the HPV vaccine" is it.
This study of hype in press releases will change journalism. Many scientists greet the prospect of media coverage with a combination of excitement and trepidation.
The attention can be heady and show the importance of a researcher’s findings. But there’s also the chance that the news media will hype the scientist’s findings. A lab study in rats ending up in the paper with the claim that more bacon jerky could prevent cancer can be embarrassing at best. More importantly, an over-hyped finding, especially in areas related to human health, could mislead readers and patients, some of whom may end up changing their behavior based on unfounded information. Brain Injuries: what NICE doesn't tell you. The title of this post is a play on the title of the magazine "What doctors don't tell you" (a rag so packed to the brim with pseudoscience and anti-vaccine propaganda that it's practically a quack's guidebook, but that's a story for another day).
As regular readers will be aware, I believe doctors generally do tell you absolutely what you need to know. Unfortunately, it seems the UK's governing body that assesses among other things, what doctors should tell you, has been resisting calls from a range of experts to inform people who have had brain injuries about a piece of information that could save their life. Nice is the acronym for the UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the body that decides the guidelines British doctors should follow. In 2008 Joanna Lane's 31-year-old son committed suicide. Twenty-four years earlier he had suffered a brain injury.
If Newspaper Headlines Were Scientifically Accurate. Researchers: your guide to hitting the headlines - Health News. Friday December 27 2013.
What a difference a day makes: How social media is transforming scientific debate (with tweets) · deevybee. The seven deadly sins of health and science reporting. Benjamin Franklin said two things are certain in life: death and taxes. Another one we could add to this list is that on any given news website and in almost all print media there will be articles about health and nutrition that are complete garbage.
Some articles that run under the health and nutrition “news” heading are thought provoking, well researched and unbiased, but unfortunately not all. And to help you traverse this maze – alongside an excellent article about 20 tips for interpreting scientific claims – we will look at seven clichés of improper or misguided reporting. If you spot any of these clichés in an article, we humbly suggest that you switch to reading LOLCats, which will be more entertaining and maybe more informative too. Whomp! Using invited editorial commentary to neutralize negative findings.
If you enjoy the content on Mind the Brain, consider subscribing for future posts via email or RSS feed. William Hollingworth and his colleagues must been pleased when they were notified that their manuscript had been accepted for publication in the prestigious (Journal impact factor =18!) Journal of Clinical Oncology. Their study examined whether screening for distress increased cancer patients’ uptake of services and improved their mood. Lessons from the L'Aquila earthquake. Sex Makes You Rich? Why We Keep Saying “Correlation Is Not Causation” Even Though It’s Annoying. Sex and money: the Bearina IUD, a conceptual intrauterine device design that would incorporate a copper coin.
One of the most effective forms of reversible contraception is the copper IUD. For more information, click the picture. Image: Ronen Kadushin. On Saturday, my Twitter feed alerted me to a totally non-sensationalistic Gawker article called More Buck For Your Bang: People Who Have More Sex Make The Most Money. “Scientists in the adonis-laden European country [Germany] found that people who have sex more than four times a week receive a 3.2 percent higher paycheck than those who have sex only once a week. Risks of placing scientists 'on message' 17 February 2012Last updated at 17:16 By Pallab Ghosh Science correspondent, BBC News Government science agencies exist to serve the public good and usually do.
Evgeny Morozov: The Naked And The TED. The new pamphlet—it would be too strong, and not only quantitatively, to call it a book—by Parag and Ayesha Khanna, the techno-babbling power couple, gallops through so many esoteric themes and irrelevant factoids (did you know that “fifty-eight percent of millennials would rather give up their sense of smell than their mobile phone”?) That one might forgive the authors for never properly attending to their grandest, most persuasive, and almost certainly inadvertent argument. Only the rare reader would finish this piece of digito-futuristic nonsense unconvinced that technology is—to borrow a term of art from the philosopher Harry Frankfurt—bullshit.
No, not technology itself; just much of today’s discourse about technology, of which this little e-book is a succinct and mind-numbing example. What Jonah Lehrer reveals about popular science writing » Daniel Bor. Jonah Lehrer is one of the hottest science writers around. But this week, in a dramatic fall from grace, he resigned from his staff position at the New Yorker, and his publisher has removed his latest book, Imagine, from sale. The catalyst for these dramatic events is the fact that he fabricated quotes from Bob Dylan, as uncovered by the online Tablet magazine. I had a few small interactions with Jonah Lehrer in late 2009, and looking back, they perfectly reflected both the reasons for his fame, and his impending troubles.
New Yorker's Jonah Lehrer quits over fake Dylan quotes. 31 July 2012Last updated at 01:21 GMT Jonah Lehrer was a rising star at the New Yorker, focusing on science reporting. 'Chemical nonsense': Leading scientists refute Lord Monckton's attack on climate science. A coalition of leading climate scientists yesterday filed a 48-page document to the US Congress refuting an attack on climate science made earlier this year by the Ukip deputy leader, Lord Christopher Monckton.
The detailed rebuttal addresses nine key scientific claims made by Monckton, a prominent climate sceptic, to a house select committee hearing in May. It includes the responses of 21 climate scientists who variously conclude that Monckton's assertions are "very misleading", "profoundly wrong", "simply false", "chemical nonsense", and "cannot be supported by climate physics".
Monckton, a former journalist and policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher, who has been the deputy leader of the UK Independence party (Ukip) since June, was invited by the Republican party to give evidence to the house select committee on energy independence and global warming. Interdira-t-on les prévisions climatiques. What eight years of writing the Bad Science column have taught me. Can we trust scientists who give TED talks? I came across an interesting article this morning in Slate questioning recent papers on the “contagiousness” of factors ranging from obesity to divorce. The papers were published in top journals like the New England Journal of Medicine (I wrote this enthusiastic blog post about the findings back in 2008) and have generated a wide range of media attention, including the TED talk which I’ve embedded below.
Climate change education can still be part of a slimmed-down curriculum. Would it be in pupils' best interests to drop climate change from the national curriculum, as a key government adviser suggested today? The Great Beyond: New intelligent design centre launches in Britain. Why I spoofed science journalism.
Pornography in hospitals. Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 25 September 2010. Journalism warning labels. Journalism Warning Labels. Creationists seek to insert their own brand of 'truth' into education. Thirty reasons why man is not descended from apes may seem an unlikely thing for children to learn on an educational school trip. Not fit for television. When we turn on the TV and see an ‘expert’, we assume that person is a carefully selected specialist.
But that isn’t how it works. Frequently TV experts are those who look a certain way, will deliver the message programme makers want, or whose agents have got them included. In which I continue to whine about crappy science journalism blogging. Note: Since publication, the referenced article has been removed without note. This is a news website article about a scientific finding. When did announcing science become the same as publishing science? Faked data, unsubstantiated claims, and spirituality add up to a math journal retraction.