HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

If you're saying that the standard of 'reporting' on health and science in the media at large is often conflicting and distorted into a confusing and often contradictory form there is definitely validity in that. John Oliver has a great segment called 'Scientific Studies' I'll link at the end of this post, everyone should watch this. If you are able to read the journals directly and have studied how to critically evaluate scientific studies I can guarantee that there is significantly, like thousands-fold, more consistent information. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw

I mean, doesn't the west have the exact same issues? p-Hacking, lack of repeat studies, focusing on experiments that will make the biggest headlines, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw

⬐ krona

The issue is as much a cultural one. I used to work with an editor of one of the worlds most prestigious chemistry journals, and she oft remarked how Chinese scientists didn't think accusations of plagiarism were sufficient grounds for rejection of a paper.

⬐ everybodyknows

In some cultures, cheaters try to keep it secret from the people they care about, because ostracism might follow. In other cultures, successful cheating is praised.

⬐ whooshee

I cannot think of a country which values cheating.

⬐ frozenport

And much of it is committed by Chinease origin scientists.

⬐ sctb

We've already asked you to please not make any nationalistic swipes like this, so we've banned the account.

⬐ robotresearcher

The issues are the same, but the frequency of them is very important. Academic fraud is like crime: it's always going to happen, but a little is very different to a lot.

⬐ boomboomsubban

The frequency is very important. Where is any evidence that the Chinese have a higher rate?

⬐ None

None

⬐ robotresearcher

From the fine article that we are discussing:

“Since 2012, the country has retracted more scientific papers because of faked peer reviews than all other countries and territories put together, according to Retraction Watch”

Along with the entire rest of the article filled with quotes and stats.

⬐ None

None

⬐ boomboomsubban

Number of faked papers isn't a frequency.

⬐ robotresearcher

Do you believe that China published more papers than everyone else put together in the same period?

I helped run a large international conference recently, with 900 published papers. Of these 66 (7.3%) were from China, and 280 (31%) from the US. Germany had 104 (12%). The numbers will vary by field, of course, but I've no reason to believe that this meeting was an outlier.

⬐ boomboomsubban

>Do you believe that China published more papers than everyone else put together in the same period?

I don't hold a belief, I haven't seen data that you seemed to be using to make conclusions. Or you're making somewhat large assumptions based on a few pieces of information. A little is different than a lot, both could have a little or a lot though.

> I've no reason to believe that this meeting was an outlier

Here's one, it was presumably run across the Pacific ocean from China.

⬐ robotresearcher

You’re trying too hard. There is no reason to believe that China is publishing papers faster than the rest of the world put together, unless you have data to that effect.

China is big, but not bigger than everyone else put together. Less than one person in six is Chinese.

And your presumption happens to be accurate, but 1 in 3 editions of the conference happen in Asia including China and China is still out-published by the USA by 4 to 1 or so even when the event is held in China. Chinese outnumber Americans five to one. Americans outpublish Chinese people many times over. As an aside, Swiss people outpublish Americans 8 to 1.

So, while skepticism is noble, when a country of 1/6 the people in the world has a retraction rate higher than everyone else put together, you need extraordinary data to decide that they are not in a mess. And “I don’t have data” is no such argument.

⬐ boomboomsubban

So in a discussion about research fraud, you're chastising me for wanting data you call important, putting complete trust in the data of a blog that you haven't seen, and posted random data you claim to have helped collect without giving me any reason to believe it's accurate.

Looking for retraction watch's numbers gave me a study that shows the US having the most retractions.[1] So again, if rates are what is important, you need data showing the rates.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/42/17028.full

And tomorrow someone will find links between depression and happiness. There are 10's of thousands of studies published a year, in which case most are completely unfounded or ridiculous.

With the right test group, right questions, and correctly controlled environment, you can create almost any conclusion.

"Scientific Studies: John Oliver" : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw

"Stanford News - research Scientists and Data": http://news.stanford.edu/2015/11/16/fraud-science-papers-111...

"TWP - 64 Scientific Papers Restracted": https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/1...

⬐ dang

Maybe so, but please don't post generic dismissals to HN. It takes discussion in predictable directions, which is not interesting. Better comments find something specific to engage with.

Generally, I think scientific studies are uninformative as news because:

1. Most people are not close enough to the science to form an informed technical opinion.

2. The scientific conclusions of most studies are impractical to implement.

John Oliver's analysis is both sophisticated and entertaining: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw

Didn't John Oliver say the same thing few months ago in his episode on scientific studies, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw

> While these errors may appear minor to some, confusing an opinion piece with research is likely to seem disturbing, if not egregious, to those in the scientific community.

This is far from a new problem, and this particular piece is far from egregious, relatively speaking, considering how bad public science reporting is in general in the mass media.

John Oliver had fun with it recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw

John Oliver did an awesome bit recently on scientific studies and how popular conceptions of them, especially media portrayals, completely distort the results.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw

Remind me of this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw

John Oliver explains?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw

⬐ jimrandomh

John Oliver pointed out that the media usually distorts what the studies say. He failed to flag the problem of junk science in high-prestige journals.

(Edit: I just re-watched his segment. He does talk about P-hacking and perverse incentives, which is at least a reasonable-size chunk of the problem, just not the failure mode for this particular study.)

⬐ arcanus

I still agree with you, he did not place enough of the blame on scientists who are unable or unwilling to properly communicate the implications of their work.

Yes, that is an issue. John Oliver addressed it recently: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw

I'll just throw this in. John Oliver on science and bullshit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw

This disclaimer needs to be included in any conversation about this study. In the same week that John Oliver ranted on the dangers of misleading scientific studies[1] we see headlines like "Medical error in hospitals is the third leading cause of death in the U.S." with no mention of the fact that this study qualifies an "error" as anytime a doctor isn't a perfect healing machine.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw

Relevant:

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw