Things I don’t understand ||

What’s missing from the picture? Our memories are being reprogrammed.

I completely agree with Roger Ebert on this one

This is an interesting article from The Economist, about a survey done by Greek researchers into scientific publishing.

IN ECONOMIC theory the winner’s curse refers to the idea that someone who places the winning bid in an auction may have paid too much. Consider, for example, bids to develop an oil field. Most of the offers are likely to cluster around the true value of the resource, so the highest bidder probably paid too much.

The same thing may be happening in scientific publishing, according to a new analysis. With so many scientific papers chasing so few pages in the most prestigious journals, the winners could be the ones most likely to oversell themselves—to trumpet dramatic or important results that later turn out to be false. This would produce a distorted picture of scientific knowledge, with less dramatic (but more accurate) results either relegated to obscure journals or left unpublished.

I’ve noticed this publication bias in climate science, where its a little more sinister than that. But with the proliferation of scientific journals, one would expect this to even out? Apparently not.

Hundreds of thousands of scientific researchers are hired, promoted and funded according not only to how much work they produce, but also to where it gets published. For many, the ultimate accolade is to appear in a journal like Nature or Science. Such publications boast that they are very selective, turning down the vast majority of papers that are submitted to them.

The assumption is that, as a result, such journals publish only the best scientific work. But Dr Ioannidis and his colleagues argue that the reputations of the journals are pumped up by an artificial scarcity of the kind that keeps diamonds expensive. And such a scarcity, they suggest, can make it more likely that the leading journals will publish dramatic, but what may ultimately turn out to be incorrect, research.

Then there should be a Journal of Boring Research dedicated to experiments which confirm other previously published work. Besides which, Science and Nature are being actively avoided by some researchers because of their biases for novelty and spectacular results over work which disconfirms widely held beliefs.

But its clear where the scientific rat-race is. “Publish or be fired” is the paradigm. It doesn’t matter if its wrong, just as long as its published. Hence the need for ever more florid language which hides methodological weakness and data poverty until after someone asks for them after publication.

I can’t resist this piece without thinking about “The Mann Hockey Stick” and the research of Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick:

The group’s more general argument is that scientific research is so difficult—the sample sizes must be big and the analysis rigorous—that most research may end up being wrong. And the “hotter” the field, the greater the competition is and the more likely it is that published research in top journals could be wrong.

There also seems to be a bias towards publishing positive results. For instance, a study earlier this year found that among the studies submitted to America’s Food and Drug Administration about the effectiveness of antidepressants, almost all of those with positive results were published, whereas very few of those with negative results were. But negative results are potentially just as informative as positive results, if not as exciting.

Of course, if somebody checks a popular result and finds it seriously wanting, then you’ll find that scientific journals will tend not to publish them, if they get a chance. But as the article says, “negative” reports are just as valid and useful as “positive” ones.

Tags: scientificjournals, science, nature, publication bias

This comes from the BBC’s description of the flights of SpaceShipTwo to take people to the edge of space, and then come back to a nice safe landing (hopefully). And all for a mere $200,000 - the world’s most expensive rollercoaster.

Of course, Richard Branson is a man who is extremely adept at being on both sides of the debate on environmental issues.

On the one hand he runs a transcontinental airline and several smaller low-cost airlines so beloved of environmental extremists AND now a sub-orbital flight company, none of which are known for their environmental friendliness or low carbon emissions.

And on the other:

“To my mind there is no greater or more immediate challenge than that posed by climate change,” said Sir Richard.

“It’s therefore more than fitting that the very first science to be conducted on board our new vehicles may be specifically directed at increasing our understanding and knowledge of the atmosphere and from there, to better inform our decisions as to the most effective ways of dealing with climate change.”

“It’s therefore more than fitting that the very first science to be conducted on board our new vehicles may be specifically directed at increasing our understanding and knowledge of the atmosphere and from there, to better inform our decisions as to the most effective ways of dealing with climate change.”

What’s the betting that no-one will be tasteless enough to point out the carbon emissions per passenger of SpaceShipTwo? Certainly not NASA/NOAA because he’s offered to put their scientific instruments on his carbon-spewing air tractor, sorry, sub-orbital first stage launcher, White Knight 2

“Almost everything Noaa does at the moment is at 25,000ft (7,600m) maximum altitude. It’s quite difficult to find research aircraft that do atmospheric testing above that,” Will Whitehorn, president of Virgin Galactic, explained.

“One of the things that we as an airline operator know is that the tropopause is rising slightly. That has had quite an effect on aircraft flying in the upper atmosphere and the amount of turbulence they get.

“This is probably related to the mix of greenhouse gases and the levels they are rising to that’s moving the tropopause up.”

…and absolutely nothing to do with the greenhouse gases coming from Richard Branson’s planes.

So here’s today’s scientific question: What’s wrong with this picture?

I rather think even Sir Isaac Newton could answer this one.

Blogged with the Flock Browser