'Twas two nights before Christmas
and throughout the net
a faint murmur was heard
that foretold great regret...[1]
From inbox to inbox
and web dissemination [2]
all soon heard of social neurosciences'
voodoo correlations.
 |
| source |
But what's in a name?
How could all understand
what statistical nuances of criticism
were at hand? [3]
While some thusly retorted,
it all came too late,
as the mighty blogosphere
had decided its fate.
When a voice from within cried:
``But this is not fair!
Science can't be debated
out in open air!
When complex ideas
and thoughts are at play
behind tightly closed doors
must the dialogue stay.
Until resolutions within
the community are decided,
we're too vulnerable to
sensationalistic media bias.''[4]
``We know,'' said Vul et al,
"that you all are good-hearted.
We know that only needed
to finish what you started--
 |
| source |
That statistics are tricky
That the tools are quite new;
But running biased
secondary analyses is voodoo.
There are ways to correct
the scientific lit
Just reanalyze your data
and we shall acquit." [5]
``But we did nothing wrong!
You misunderstand!
Using secondary correlations is NOT
some brilliant scam!
To bedazzle you
with brain-behavior relations!
It's just another way of doing
data presentation.''
``But do you really believe
Without correlation values so high
You could publish in Science,
Nature, and Nature Neurosci?''
``The question,'' they responded,
``is not how strong but where
such social function is processed
right under your hair.''
 |
| source |
None really cared.
Bloggers kept blogging,
And social neuroscience got scared:
``What will we do
when no one wants to fund us?
To publish our papers
or with brain scanners entrust us? [6,7]
Why were those voodoo
critics so mean?!
Naming our names,
and crushing our dreams?
All we ever wanted
was to help understand
Why people need people--
And how our brains lend a hand.
Why are we moral?
And why do we hate?
And how does the love or pain
of another translate?
Why does being alone
sometimes cause us such pain,
If all is controlled
by our solitary brains?
 |
| source |
But most of all
how could we be to blame
For asking such questions
in the social realm's name?''
Over months the debate dwindled
'Till summer arrived at last
And a salmon was scanned
During a perspective taking task.
The point, the authors told us
Was not that dead salmons feel
But rather that the importance
Of statistical correction was real.
With uproarious laughter
The conference hall replied:
``Multiple comparison correction
Cannot be denied!''
The moral:
When finger pointing begins
You'll get everyone's attention
But surely before long
you'll be buried in dissention.
To say something critical,
Try to say it in jest--
And those who can follow
Might just heed your request.
1. Vul, E. Ed Vul - Voodoo correlations. (2010).at <http://www.edvul.com/voodoocorr.php>
2. Begley, S. The 'Voodoo' Science of Brain Imaging. Lab Notes (2008).at <http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/labnotes/archive/2009/01/09/the-voodoo-science-of-brain-imaging.aspx>
3. Abbott, A. Brain imaging studies under fire. Nature News 457, (2009).
4. Jabbi, M., Keysers, C., Singer, T. \& Stephan, K.E. Voodoo Correlations in Social Neuroscience" by Vul et al. - summary information for the press. at <www.bcn-nic.nl/replyVul.pdf>
5. Vul, E. Ed Vul - Voodoo rebuttal. (2010).at <http://www.edvul.com/voodoorebuttal.php>
6. Bardin, J. Voodoo That Scientists Do. Seed Magazine (2009).at <http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/that_voodoo_that_scientists_do/>
7. Lehrer, J. In Defense of the Value of Social Neuroscience. Mind Matters (2009).at <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=defense-social-neuroscience>
