Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

blogs.bmj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 491 posts

Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

#231

Post by nitwit005 »

sjwalter wrote: post #203

What I want to know is how does this issue impact the notion that we all seem to buy into that we should "follow the science". Scientists themselves have a hard time "following the science". Add to it the observation that when an issue is getting lots of attention outside of academia, then there are usually some really strong incentives (profit, prestige) associated with doing the science and applying it (e.g., epide…

I would assume the people saying "follow the science" generally don't mean "believe recent research publications".

I still occasionally see things like "hanging a potato to your wall will cure your child's flu" being debated by friends of friends on Facebook. You'd need to take a time machine several hundred years back for it to be within the realm of realm of genuine scientific debate.

Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

#232

Post by biztos »

OriginalNebula wrote: post #134
injidup wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thankyou for the tip. I'Ll look into it tomorrow.

No, thank you! Austria has a weird thing with pseudoscience scams [0][1][2] and it needs to be dealt with. [0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belebtes_Wasser [1] The current Minister of Economy was working as an "energizer" https://www.diepresse.com/5395317/wirtschaftsministerin-schr... [2] During the construction of a hospital in Vienna, an "energetic" ring was built around the construction site for 95000 Euro. https…

Wow, that water looks amazing! Is anybody using it to brew bulletproof coffee[0]?

[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/14/style/the-cult-of-the-bul...

Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

#233

Post by remram »

beebeepka wrote: post #137
dpifke wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can be sued by anyone, for anything, at any time. Whether or not that lawsuit has any merit is irrelevant. With certain exceptions based on subject matter (e.g. SLAPP) or jurisdiction, it still costs money to hire a lawyer to defend against the suit.

I don't think that's how things work in most European countries. Yes, there are costs but they will be covered by the loser. No way this person loses against these particular fraudsters

Some countries are also sensible to abuse of the legal system to this end, e.g. Lenovo had to pay 20,000 EUR in damages after they decided to drag the case of a consumer who wanted his 42 EUR Windows license refunded: https://fsfe.org/news/2021/news-20210302-01.en.html

Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

#234

Post by version_five »

sjwalter wrote: post #203

What I want to know is how does this issue impact the notion that we all seem to buy into that we should "follow the science". Scientists themselves have a hard time "following the science". Add to it the observation that when an issue is getting lots of attention outside of academia, then there are usually some really strong incentives (profit, prestige) associated with doing the science and applying it (e.g., epide…

Follow the science is only used as a rhetorical device outside of science to try and convince people of something political. You would never hear an actual researcher say that.

There is a realistic, weaker statement about the best available information we have, that a specialist could use to explain to a non specialist why they are making a recommendation about something emerging or theoretical. But what we are hearing with "follow the science" really means follow the carefully crafted political message that politicians with scientific credentials have put out.

It's easy to see a distinction. Nobody needs to be told to follow the science on antibiotics or birth control or something. I think the blatant anti-intellectualism in the follow the science type statements is why we have so much worry about vaccines e.g. People aren't stupid and they can tell the difference between being manipulated and being presented with something objective. Even if you're right, it's a bad strategy to try and trick people or use religion to get your point across. See "the science is settled". Nothing makes people stop listening faster.

Edit: and ironically, people call those who don't "follow the science" anti-intellectuals, as if intellectuals take things on blind faith. Every time I hear mention of anti-intellectualism, I have to remember that people are referring to those that question official doctrine, as opposed to those who have framed religion as science to try and short circuit debate.

Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

#235

Post by ekianjo »

beebeepka wrote: post #137
dpifke wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can be sued by anyone, for anything, at any time. Whether or not that lawsuit has any merit is irrelevant. With certain exceptions based on subject matter (e.g. SLAPP) or jurisdiction, it still costs money to hire a lawyer to defend against the suit.

I don't think that's how things work in most European countries. Yes, there are costs but they will be covered by the loser. No way this person loses against these particular fraudsters

still costs money upfront

Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

#236

Post by lumost »

btilly wrote: post #178
lumost wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, I've seen an increasing trend towards mediocrity and outright fraud across multiple public and private institutions that reward individuals based on some power law. If the author of the most cited paper in a field is going to get all the grants, and a standard "useful" paper is going to get no continued funding - then researchers will push to make their work sensational. Eventually the professors and everyo…

https://www.sciencealert.com/non-replicable-studies-make-the... may interest you. Papers that can't replicate get cited more than papers that can. In other words if your goal is to craft a paper that draws attention, that's harder if you're being meticulous about limiting yourself to saying to what evidence shows is clearly true.

Unfortunately this will be a baseline that keeps moving. scientists compete on publications so they will make more sensationalist headlines, There will then be more sensationalist headlines to compete with forcing fraud/or irrational exuberance.

Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

#237

Post by IX-103 »

diognesofsinope wrote: post #107
ethanbond wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. The incentives in science are all wrong. To maximize your chances of publication (i.e. keeping your job), you have to make the most outlandish claims you can possibly maybe defend. Additionally, the complexity of data/analysis is increasing every day while also the esoteric domain knowledge required to make any progress is deeper and more specialized.

Not only this, academia is a really cushy job. When I was an economics RA literally half of the econ professors didn't work Fridays and barely worked summers. It was incredible you get paid 150k with that kind of schedule.

Interesting. In my experience professors might not be on campus teaching one or two days a week or in summer, but that's only because they are working their ass off from home, writing grant proposals, reviewing papers, doing basically anything to get funding, and trying to find time to manage their own research.

I used to think it was a great gig too, since most professors had one or more small businesses on the side. Then I realized they have those businesses and consulting companies because that means they can also apply for small business grants (which they use to subcontract the research out to the university) in addition to the normal academic research grants. If you also count teaching, then that means those professors are working three jobs for one salary.

I made the decision that I'd rather make 50% more working in industry doing easier (if boring) work.

Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

#238

Post by read_if_gay_ »

sjwalter wrote: post #203

What I want to know is how does this issue impact the notion that we all seem to buy into that we should "follow the science". Scientists themselves have a hard time "following the science". Add to it the observation that when an issue is getting lots of attention outside of academia, then there are usually some really strong incentives (profit, prestige) associated with doing the science and applying it (e.g., epide…

> why should normal people trust at all that any touted science is anything more than bullshit spouted by highly-motivated sophists?

In the current climate, frankly I think it's absurd that we're putting so much trust in science, or rather what it has become.

The fundamental problem is that science as in the method is absolutely worth putting your trust in, but a lot of what's sold as Science^TM has diverged from it far enough to be worthless. However, it still bears the same name and borrows its credibility. There are countless examples even from the places one would think to be the most trustworthy.

What science as in the method hinges on as opposed to Science^TM is verifiability. Disciplines that aren't easily verified suffer from the replication crisis to the point where it's basically synonymous. I would go as far as arguing that unless something has been verified several times it should be nothing more than a hypothesis. Note how popular science media are basically living off doing the opposite (though I don't think much better can be expected from the media honestly.)

Math and social sciences form the two ends of the verifiability (and reproducibility) scale. CS is close enough to math that it's not a dumpster fire like psychology but I would say we're still suffering a lot of BS research. To fix this we need actual rigor, more openness about the methods, and frankly, motivation to reproduce results.

Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

#239

Post by hammock »

long_time_gone wrote: post #31
adolph wrote: post #18

Is this some vaccine hesitancy in disguise from BMJ? Stephen Lock, my predecessor as editor of The BMJ, became worried about research fraud in the 1980s, but people thought his concerns eccentric. Research authorities insisted that fraud was rare, didn’t matter because science was self-correcting, and that no patients had suffered because of scientific fraud. All those reasons for not taking research fraud seriously…

Is there a name for the phenomenon where an internet comment is guilty of doing the thing it accuses others of doing?

It's called transference in the spook world, and you'll see it in the media/politics all the time.

Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

#240

Post by read_if_gay_ »

jahnu wrote: post #224
read_if_gay_ wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile I'm trying to launch a simple health related mobile app and it's an absolutely insurmountable amount of paperwork for a solo dev.

One "hack" to get around that is to change your health app into a "beauty" or "cosmetic" or "wellness" app. It's a very different set of regulations.

Yep, I'd love to do that, but I'm squarely in the health sector, no getting around that sadly. I might end up cutting some of the main features to qualify as a lifestyle app though. Sad but better than not launching I guess.
Post reply on HN