Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise? • Hacker News Board

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

#241

Post by mcguire » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 10:27 PM UTC

mahogany wrote: post #198

metalliqaz wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well if the original studies are inadequate simply because N is too low, then grouping many of them can resolve that problem.

Is that really true from a statistical standpoint? It seems to me that running ten 20-person studies is different and less valuable than running a single 200 person study, because each of the 20-person studies has a much larger error range that you have to account for. But I'm also not good with stats.

That's ideally what the meta-analysis is supposed to correct for.

But if two of the studies are just completely made up and another couple have errors in their design that aren't mentioned in the write-up....

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

#242

Post by pm_me_your_quan » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 10:31 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #217

ModernMech wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Universities and grants are this firehose of tax money being sprayed everywhere without even the slightest bit of accountability in how it's used. This is definitely not true, recipients of grants are heavily restricted on what kind of things they can spend that money on. I can't even fly a non-domestic carrier using grant money without proving no other alternatives exist. Do research projects sometimes fail to del…

> This is definitely not true, recipients of grants are heavily restricted on what kind of things they can spend that money on. I can't even fly a non-domestic carrier using grant money without proving no other alternatives exist. That is pure corruption: the grant is funneling money from you to a domestic ariline. If it was about accountability you would have to prove the flight was really needed in the first place,…

> If it was about accountability you would have to prove the flight was really needed in the first place,

Friend, at a certain point the overhead to administrate these kinds of checks is more costly than just letting people buy tickets to go to conferences. And at this point it isn't corruption in the university, it's in the form of handouts to large corporations.

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

#243

Post by pm_me_your_quan » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 10:32 PM UTC

eloff wrote: post #111

ta988 wrote: post #22

When you want to do a proper work, your grants and papers get rejected because they are not innovatove enough or don't go far enough. So it is not a surprise that people that lied in their applications about what they can realistically do also lie when it comes to reporting results. Unfortunately there is no way out. I stopped counting how many reviewers of my grants disagreed on what was proposed, one saying that it…

Peer review is shit. It's elitist, it's actively anti innovation and enforces the status quo. Peer review should happen out in the open and not just be limited to academics.

academics are largely the only people who will be able to understand the work, but sure.

The fact that it's not out in the open is somewhat complicated. You're perhaps right that it would lead to better outcomes, but it's also important that researchers feel free to speak openly.

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

#244

Post by robotresearcher » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 10:33 PM UTC

bserge wrote: post #165

MeinBlutIstBlau wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a personal philosophy on most health oriented fads: if someone is actively trying to sell something, it's snake oil. Too many people are looking for everlasting life that they're okay with being swindled in the pursuit of it. Naive enough to believe that people are honest when promoting products they're were paid to promote.

You can pair it with: if it works, it's controlled. Meaning you can't get it without prescription and have to go through the tortures of a health "care" system.

What fraction of your drug store purchases involve prescriptions? For me it's Aspirin and fluoride toothpaste are each pretty darn effective.

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

#245

Post by patrec » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 10:34 PM UTC

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #129

patrec wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this is a forum for nerds, but I struggle to understand how anyone could seriously believe that being surrounded by people who are either psychopathic or paranoid is probably A-OK, as long as they are all competent statisticians.

You're a psychopath or paranoid if you don't blindly trust data - without putting some effort into seeing what the quality of the data is and how much evidence supports it???

> I'm not convinced a low-trust society is inherently bad.

The term "low-trust society" is generally not used to distinguish societies where people put enough emphasis into seeing what the quality of the data is and how much evidence supports it. Maybe because no one ever heard of such a thing. I do share your lack of conviction that such a society would inherently be a bad thing.

Maybe we in fact agree that a low trust society in the conventional sense -- one characterized by low interpersonal trust -- is less appealing?

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

#246

Post by hallway_monitor » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 10:35 PM UTC

nitwit005 wrote: post #231

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.

You seem to be indicating the preferred time window for which research to trust. Not too new, not too old. Not the worst algorithm you could choose, and I agree. This is why I stay away from drugs, procedures, and any kind of guidance from the medical profession that is less than 20 years old.

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

#247

Post by version_five » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 10:36 PM UTC

read_if_gay_ wrote: post #238

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…

I would just add that science and the scientific method are designed to be used in good faith. Science doesn't really withstand political manipulation. If you're a researcher interested in learning more about the universe, science provides a framework for questioning and testing ideas, and for using established ideas as a jumping off point for further advances. As soon as there are other motivations than learning, the answers that "science" provides basically become unknowable because the whole process, from what to study to how to interpret and report findings, becomes corrupted.

We need good politicians to negotiate a consensus on how we move forward in light of human desires and modern thinking about cause and effect. Pretending that "science" provides us with a way forward is abusing science for something it is not designed to do nor capable of doing.

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

#248

Post by nixpulvis » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 10:40 PM UTC

menzoic wrote: post #174

injidup wrote: post #20

I recently had the privilege of trying to do the right thing when I identified fraudulent research carried out by an institution in Austria. The initial response of the institution was positive but when I pressed for further details on how such things could happen suddenly nobody anymore would take my call. The research was paid for by a private company to pimp a nonsense product. The research was never published in…

It seems well intentioned, but I'm not surprised at all about the outcome. I don't think you can expect the institution to implicate themselves like that. You have to realize that preventing legal and financial liabilities is the #1 priority for institutions. Unfortunately this includes when they are wrong. Even if the employees are "good" their lawyers will advise them against providing any details like that and mos…

So what should be done? Hire your own lawyers to go after them pro bono?

Write an article and send it to the papers?

This kind of thing needs to be shamed and punished. While I agree that the institutions can be expected to cover there ass, there must be a course of action.

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

#249

Post by native_samples » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 10:41 PM UTC

ModernMech wrote: post #207

native_samples wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem here is not profit but the reverse, the corruption comes from the absence of profit. Universities and grants are this firehose of tax money being sprayed everywhere without even the slightest bit of accountability in how it's used. The government effectively "loses" all of it in accounting terms, but because it's tax it doesn't matter. The buyer is blind and doesn't even bother looking at the papers they'…

> Universities and grants are this firehose of tax money being sprayed everywhere without even the slightest bit of accountability in how it's used. This is definitely not true, recipients of grants are heavily restricted on what kind of things they can spend that money on. I can't even fly a non-domestic carrier using grant money without proving no other alternatives exist. Do research projects sometimes fail to del…

recipients of grants are heavily restricted

They are restricted in trivial ways that are easy for a bureaucracy to mechanically enforce, as is true of employees at every institution.

What I meant by accountability is deeper: people are not accountable for the quality or utility of their work, hence the endless tidal wave of corrupt and deceptive research that pours out of government funded 'science' every day. These researchers probably filled out their expenses paperwork correctly but the final resulting paper was an exercise in circular reasoning, or the data tables were made up, or it was P-hacked or whatever. And nobody in government cares or even notices, because nobody is held accountable for the quality of the outputs.

Whilst DeepMind is not especially interested in profit it's true, and is just doing basic research, Google itself is an excellent example of how to seamlessly integrate fundamental research with actual application of that research. That's what profit motivated research looks like: just this endless stream of innovative tech being deployed into real products that are used by lots of people, without much drama.

We have come to take this feat so much for granted that you're actually asking if someone working on ads is leaving the world better off. Yes, it does. Google ads are clicked on all the time because they are useful to people who are in the market to buy something. Those ads are at the center of an enormous and very high tech economic engine that powers staggering levels of wealth creation. If I understand correctly, a lot of academic papers are actually never cited by anyone - a researcher who optimises search ads by just 1% will have a positive impact on the world orders of magnitude greater than that.

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

#250

Post by chc » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 10:41 PM UTC

kxkdkkf wrote: post #230

AlexMoffat wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what possible reason are you asking that question of anyone?

Well, maybe you own a waxing salon that does Brazilian waxes and you're Muslim and don't believe you should see or be in contact with male genitalia besides that of your husband. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Yaniv > In 2018, Yaniv filed discrimination complaints with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal against multiple waxing salons alleging that they refused to provide genital waxing to her because…

More like "just the one example." This same case is trotted out every time somebody wants to make this point because it does not actually seem to be a trend.

But besides that, it doesn't answer the question you were responding to. Asking someone's birth sex does not tell you what genitalia they have. It doesn't even really tell you what genitalia they had at birth. Since those salon owners say they specifically objected to the woman's current genitalia rather than the woman's status as transgender, birth sex is the wrong question to ask.