You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
-Short Attention Span Theater-
Scientific Studies Statistically Stupid
2009-03-14
When a group of British academic researchers reported last spring that women fond of eating breakfast cereal were more likely to give birth to boys, the story was lapped up by journalists the world over. "Skip breakfast for a daughter, eat up your cereals for a son," advised the Economist, just one of many publications to seize on the report.

The problem with this fascinating study? It appears to be wrong. An analysis led by Stan Young of the National Institute for Statistical Sciences found that the original conclusion was based on poor statistics and is probably the result of chance.

So far, Young's rebuttal, published in January, has received little notice. That it is ignored by many of the media outlets that lavished attention on the original report isn't surprising; in fact, the most remarkable thing is how ordinary that lack of attention may be. A lot of science, and journalism it turns out, can't withstand serious scrutiny. Thoughtful analysis by John Ioannidis suggests that more than half of published scientific research findings can't be replicated by other researchers.
The WaPo is on to something here...
Part of the problem is that we've been conditioned to trust university research. It is based, after all, on the presumably lofty motives of its practitioners. What's not to like about science carried out by academics who have nobly dedicated their lives to understanding the unknown, furthering knowledge and serving humanity?
Yeah, sure, just like the Main Stream Media.

Within academia's ivied walls (where I spent more than two decades), the view is a bit different. The university is not a peaceable kingdom, and life is far more Hobbesian. Henry Kissinger was on to something when he observed that "university politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small." In contrast to the academia-vs.-industry trope, hubris, self-interest and ambition are not checked at the university door; arguably, they are essential for admission and required for professional success.
Posted by:Bobby

#8  Snap, Crackle and Not!
Posted by: Shipman   2009-03-14 21:19  

#7  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics:

How to Lie with Statistics is a book written by Darrell Huff in 1954 presenting an introduction to statistics for the general reader. It is a brief, breezy, illustrated volume outlining common errors, both intentional and unintentional, associated with the interpretation of statistics, and how these errors can lead to inaccurate conclusions. It has become one of the most widely read statistics books in history (even though Huff was not a statistician), with over one and a half million copies sold in the English-language edition[1]. It has also been widely translated.

An so....?
Posted by: Uncle Phester   2009-03-14 16:40  

#6  I don't know. It must be true. My wife ate cereal for breakfast all the time. We had five sons. QED.
Of course, some good friends of ours had six daughters, and I'll bet the woman ate cereal too.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia   2009-03-14 13:16  

#5  When a group of British academic researchers reported last spring that women fond of eating breakfast cereal were more likely to give birth to boys

What a silly conclusion, everyone knows it's have sex on even days of the month for boys and odd days for girls.
Err..or is it the other way around?
Posted by: tipper   2009-03-14 12:36  

#4  When a group of British academic researchers reported last spring that women fond of eating breakfast cereal were more likely to give birth to boys, the story was lapped up by journalists the world over. "Skip breakfast for a daughter, eat up your cereals for a son," advised the Economist, just one of many publications to seize on the report.

The problem with this fascinating study? It appears to be wrong. An analysis led by Stan Young of the National Institute for Statistical Sciences found that the original conclusion was based on poor statistics and is probably the result of chance.

So far, Young's rebuttal, published in January, has received little notice. That it is ignored by many of the media outlets that lavished attention on the original report isn't surprising; in fact, the most remarkable thing is how ordinary that lack of attention may be. A lot of science, and journalism it turns out, can't withstand serious scrutiny. Thoughtful analysis by John Ioannidis suggests that more than half of published scientific research findings can't be replicated by other researchers.
The WaPo is on to something here...
Part of the problem is that we've been conditioned to trust university research. It is based, after all, on the presumably lofty motives of its practitioners. What's not to like about science carried out by academics who have nobly dedicated their lives to understanding the unknown, furthering knowledge and serving humanity...


and getting as much swag from gov't grants and foundations and invites to tony conferences as possible.
Posted by: AlanC   2009-03-14 09:21  

#3  Better would be making universities liable to class actions for false or misleading claims by faculty.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2009-03-14 09:21  

#2  Scientific institutions need to crack down on press releases. The best bet would be to require that they be released via a public information office that would insure that it did not encourage bad inferences.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2009-03-14 09:02  

#1  women fond of eating breakfast cereal were more likely to give birth to boys,

"This science is settled! End of discussion"

/AlGore
Posted by: Frank G   2009-03-14 08:26  

00:00