Are you also disappointed in many of "scientific studies" oft cited in the media?

It seems to me that the most publicized scientific studies are worst in terms of good scientific procedures. I guess there's an obvious connection you can make there with the idea that pseudo-science is often going to be more interesting but what about all the people that actually believe some of this garbage without first questioning the method in which research was done, among other things? It seems I find at least 2 to 3 factors that aren't taken in the equation with a large majority of the recent studies and findings in the modern "scientist's" research methods. The general public also seems to place your average scientist's opinion like on par with a Catholic's opinion with the pope. I have always excelled in any science I've taken, so I guess it's easier for to look at them as peers...but I really think that's how we should all approach it; look at the approach, not the title of the person conducting it. Please tell me there's someone out there who can relate.

Are you also disappointed in many of "scientific studies" oft cited in the media?
1. If you see a scientific study showing that a blood pressure drug also causes weight loss, attracts the opposite sex, and cures cancer, see if the study was paid for by the manufacturer of the drug.





2. Performing a valid scientific study costs a lot more than just saying that you did.





3. If a scientific study reports that 97% of Americans want the US to get out of Iraq, see who paid for the study, who conducted it, how many people they asked, how they asked, and what question they asked.





4. Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."





5. Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Are you trying to prove him wrong? Are you saying you can, with a scientific study?
Reply:Good go for it . It is hard to find the truth ,and except nothing less.


I did work for NASA and worked my way up to a network trouble shooter on Transmitters ,antennas ,and tracking systems .I have been very disappointed in the younger Eng.


Keep fighting for the truth.
Reply:For the most part, neither the "science reporters" nor the public they are reporting for know enough about science or critical thinking to evaluate the information being reported. There is this tendency to relate to science as revealed truth, rather than what it really is - an often ambiguous struggle to tease new knowledge out of a confusing array of data. Often, what is presented in a scientific journal as a tentative conclusion with lots of questions and caveats gets reported as some startling new discovery that turns established science on its head. You never see any mention of the follow-up studies that reveal where the initial research or analysis went wrong.





This is further distorted by the number of studies that are funded by corporations with expectations of particular results. Some news organizations now report who funded a study. This is particularly rampant in health and nutrition, where manufacturers want "scientific facts" they can use to promote their products. If you're old enough, you might remember scientific studies touting the health benefits of margarine. The oilseed industry supported the research, and gave generously to the American Heart Association, while suppressing research into the harmful effects of trans fats.





I think the key problem is a lack of critical thinking. People either accept as gospel anything presented as science, or swing to the opposite pole and justify their belief in absurd conspiracy theories and New Age nonsense with "science doesn't know everything".
Reply:Did you know that more than 210 planets have been detected orbiting nearby stars? The popular media will not report this fact because after the first few are reported, and maybe a report of a direct observation they decide the general public is no longer interested and go back to yammering about Britney Spears.





Some astronomers have been studying gamma ray bursts, these are actually quite common and are associated with very energetic events in remote and very old galaxies, but again after a few have been reported, it's back to Britney and Ms Hilton again, people who will be mostly forgotten except by their real friends and family in 15 years time.





As far as the medical research reported goes, the media will report stuff if it looks as if it might be of some concern to many people. It does not matter whether the science is weak or strong, if it's possibly controversial it will get reported. Therefore the kerfuffle about mobile phone radiation several years ago, the correlation between phone radiation and cancer or whatever is very slight to non-existent, but many people have mobile phones.





Meanwhile a good improvement in some forms of immunisation gets no publicity, it's a sure thing, the main scientist happens to be a pleasant looking young mother too, which does no harm to newspaper sales. Everyone "knows" that immunisation works anyhow. So the media decides the public may not be all that interested in "minor" improvements to something that is known.





If you want to know what science is actually doing, subscribe to Nature, Trends in Biotechnology, Tetrahedron, Transactions of the Royal Society, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA, Science, or any of hundreds of other peer reviewed journals, or just to to Scientific American in the USA, Cosmos in Australia or New Scientist in the United Kingdom for general roundups.