Showing posts with label Good scientific practice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Good scientific practice. Show all posts

February 02, 2018

Book Review: Bad Science

A Book by Ben Goldacre, a man who signed his dead cat up as a certified professional member of the American Association of Nutritional Consultants to prove a point.

"Let me tell you how bad things have become" begins Bad Science, before describing the Brain Gym exercises currently practiced in British schools. If you, as a budding neuroscientist (or even just as a sane individual), are concerned by the idea of children being taught that nodding their heads vigorously will make them smarter by increasing blood flow to the frontal lobes then you might want to read on. Ben Goldacre, a British doctor, is on a crusade and this book outlines his manifesto. He targets three main audiences and carries them on a crash course through modern science, mainstream media and money-making 'medical' quackery. Goldacre writes for us - scientists - as well as reaching out to people with no scientific education and imploring his 'enemies' - scare-mongering journalists and greedy nutritionists - to see reason.
Book cover of "Bad Science"

The book outlines a clear set of ideas about the advancement of public knowledge of science and Goldacre explains the obstacles he sees to these goals through a series of succinct examples of media debacles and blatant false advertising. Bad Science is the art of misinterpreting statistics, underestimating placebo effects and taking advantage of health worries and scientific ignorance in the general public to make a quick buck. Most of this is explained whilst maintaining a humorous tone - if you like gathering fun facts about the reality of recreational drug use or finding out the truth about 'Horny Goat Weed' aphrodisiacs then this is your book - but he also describes a darker side: the people who don't want to stop making money from dodgy therapies. One chapter is only included in the most recent edition of the book as Goldacre was being sued for libel by its subject, a multivitamin-pill magnate peddling lies in AIDS-striken South Africa.

Check out his TED talk!
As a population with at least basic knowledge of the procedures of evidence-based medicine, we medical neuroscientists may end up feeling a little smug as Goldacre dips into statistics and scientific reasoning. Despite this, for me at least, it served as a necessary reminder that one must always seek the full story beneath anything from a peer-reviewed academic paper to a sensationalised tabloid newspaper article. Although probably preaching to the converted, Goldacre's closing plea to scientists to make sure our work is known and not misinterpreted is sound advice. This book will make you reassess the way you think about science in the media. Please read it (or at least watch his TEDtalk).



by Ellie Rea
this article originally appeared March 2012 in Volume 5, Issue1, "Mental Health Disorders"

January 31, 2018

Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine

The Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine is an open access journal publishing negative data sets, that encourage discussions on ambiguous, unanticipated or provocative results with regard to currently accepted concepts. 
Thereby, the journal wants to challenge present scientific models and dogmas. In particular, the publication of work demonstrating that standard methods and techniques are sometimes inapplicable to some studies is of a great advantage to other researchers in their respective fields. Also, scientists and physicians are invited to publish clinical trials that do not show a higher efficacy in therapy than current treatments. This can eventually lead to the improvement of experimental design and treatment strategies.
As traditional journals infrequently publish negative studies, valuable information often becomes inaccessible to other researchers to evaluate and analyze. In particular, negative or controversial results contradicting prevalent theories aren't easily published - although they might be innovative.
Of course, not all null results and controversial data would necessarily be groundbreaking. In short, the journal believes that the publication of such results is an important influence on the scientific community to consider and improvise upon in their own research.

Check this out: http://www.jnrbm.com/

by Nicole Hentschel
This article originally appeared on June 1, 2011 in  Volume 4 - Issue 2, "Good Scientific Practice"

January 29, 2018

The Journal of Unsolved Questions (JUnQ)

PhD students from the Graduate school of Material Science (MAINZ) launched a scientific journal to publish negative results.
In the journal of Unsolved Questions (JUnQ), scientific projects gain interest that would never be published in traditional scientific journals: those with negative or inconclusive results. As most of the research projects fail to show positive results with clear conclusions, many results are not published. Accordingly, a lot of information is not available to the scientific community and gets lost.
This Journal provides a platform to exchange data on projects which did not work and are unfinished. Thereby, JUnQ wants to establish the publication of negative results as an important milestone for scientific communication especially among different disciplines to overcome biases and fraud. In addition to these articles, JUnQ also publishes short essays about open scientific questions which have not been solved yet but are important to the science community. According to good scientific practice, the articles are peer-reviewed by independent referees of the respective scientific field. Furthermore, the essays about open questions will be broadly reviewed in order to only publish scientific questions that do not contain false facts.
PUBLICATION OF NEGATIVE DATA AS AN IMPORTANT MILESTONE
Beyond that, JunQ wants to reflect about the day-to-day business in science from a meta-perspective. This will be achieved through different formats. Thus, this summer semester, JUnQ organized a lecture series with the topic "Publish or Perish...?" which discusses the influence of prevalent publication practices in natural sciences.
The first issue of JUnQ was published on January,1st, 2011 and contained two articles and 4 open questions. To get a copy and more information about JUnQ, go to http://junq.info. Articles and Open Questions can be submitted to JUnQ@uni-mainz.de.

by Nicole Hentschel
This article originally appeared on June 1, 2011 in  Volume 4 - Issue 2, "Good Scientific Practice"