Safety Emporium eyewashes
Safety Emporium eyewashes

Interactive Learning Paradigms, Incorporated

DCHAS-L Discussion List Archive

About This Archive  |   DCHAS-L 2020 Index   |   DCHAS-L Yearly Index   |   DCHAS-L Home Page

About This Archive

DCHAS-L 2020 Index

DCHAS-L Yearly Index

DCHAS-L Home Page

Previous by Date

Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Musician's union study proposal

Date: Jun 30, 2020 21:10 UTC

Author: Monona Rossol <0000030664c37427-dmarc-request**At_Symbol_Here**LISTS.PRINCETON.EDU>

Next by Date

Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] On line Lab Safety resources

Date: Jun 30, 2020 21:43 UTC

Author: Meg Osterby <megosterby**At_Symbol_Here**GMAIL.COM>

Thread context
Thread start  |  Previous in thread  |  Next in thread  |  View full thread

From: TILAK CHANDRA <0000058f112ac338-dmarc-request**At_Symbol_Here**LISTS.PRINCETON.EDU>

Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Debunking Bad COVID-19 Research

Date: Jun 30, 2020 21:11 UTC

Reply-To: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety

In-Reply-To: Re: [DCHAS-L] Debunking Bad COVID-19 Research

Demystify: 

Hi Rob:

 

See the link below about the "Correcting the Scientific Record: Retraction Practices in Chemistry and Materials Science" published in 2019.  Around 331 articles were retracted in the fields of chemistry, materials science, and chemical engineering, out of 1,114,476 papers published in those fields. Even though the number is too small, possibly something is really incorrect with these articles.

 

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemmater.9b00897


Tilak

 


From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**Princeton.EDU> on behalf of ILPI Support <info**At_Symbol_Here**ILPI.COM>
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 10:07 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**Princeton.EDU <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Debunking Bad COVID-19 Research
 
Good science is reproducible. However, it's an open secret that a significant amount of biomedical (and other) research is not.  Here are a couple slides from a lecture called Paradigms and Pseudoscience I do in my Nobel Prize course.  Keep in mind this is discussing high-impact papers that passed peer review in some of the highest impact journals out there

Slide 1 - Good Science is Reproducible

• 2012, Nature - Amgen scientists look at 53 landmark cancer studies.  Confirmed only 6 (11%). 
• 2011 - Bayer Scientists found only 25% of published preclinical studies could be validated.
• These papers spawned hundreds of other secondary studies that did not seek to confirm or falsify the original work.
• Secondary research included clinical studies.  Wow.
• Reproducible studies- "authors had paid close attention to controls, reagents, investigator bias and describing the complete data set."
• Others - plagued by lack of double blind control studies, presentation of a single result or data point, supplying data that supports their hypothesis but discarding data that does not!

(see a summary of this type of stuff here: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/what-proportion-of-cancer-studies-are-reliable/513485/ )

Slide 2 - This is Widespread

• NIH official comments 75% of published biomedical findings would be hard to reproduce.
• Smaller studies more prone to false conclusions.
• Nobody gets a publication/credit for reproducing work.
• "Publish or perish" makes people push out work prematurely.
• Reviewers seldom look at supplemental material and (in chemistry) do not reproduce the experiments.

See 
"Unreliable Research: Trouble At The Lab", The Economist, 2013, Oct 19th 2013
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble 

Slide 3 - The Math (using figures from the above…see graphic titled "Unlikely results")

• Assume 1,000 hypotheses, of which 100 are true.
• Assume false negatives will result in 80% (80) of them being found.
• Of 900 false hypotheses, 5% (45) will be false positives for various reasons.
• This makes 125 positive results, so (45/125) = 36% of the results are bogus!
• Negative results are 97% trustworthy.
• But no journals are interested in negative results!

Key poins - you don't get tenure, you don't get grants, and your company doesn't make money for replicating someone else's research. And this leads to a dangerous cascade of research and effort based on unconfirmed results.

Ask me about peer review next….

Rob Toreki


 ======================================================
Safety Emporium - Lab & Safety Supplies featuring brand names
you know and trust.  Visit us at http://www.SafetyEmporium.com
esales**At_Symbol_Here**safetyemporium.com  or toll-free: (866) 326-5412
Fax: (856) 553-6154, PO Box 1003, Blackwood, NJ 08012




On Jun 30, 2020, at 10:46 AM, Ralph Stuart <ralph**At_Symbol_Here**rstuartcih.org> wrote:

It will be interesting to see if this approach of peer review after publication becomes a trend in the scientific publishing world as in person meetings become less common and preprints rise in prominence in all fields...

- Ralph

Begin forwarded message:

Previous post  |  Top of Page  |  Next post