Although likely not at all novel, my pea-brain tends to picture these types of manipulative research practices as someone throwing their darts at a blank wall, then going over and painting a target on said wall. Always making sure the target itself is big enough that all the darts end up in the bullseye. It is nothing short of stunning how many ways there are to manipulate studies!
I was at a lecture thirty-five or so years ago by the brilliant Dan Murphy. I recall him discussing a study showing that sugar did not cause hyperactivity in children. How did they pull it off? The authors gave the control group an amount of sugar that was off the charts by anyone's measure. Then gave the experimental group of children forty or fifty percent more.
Walla...... No difference between the groups.
Makes for great headlines ----- as long as no one looks at the study. This lecture took place in the era prior to the WWW, when looking at studies was a nightmare unto itself (travel to a university, microfiche, microfilm, card catalogs, 'the stacks', or waiting while the librarian unearthed said journal from the Federal Vault).
That is a similar methodology to the studies showing vaccines don't cause autism.
There is a correlation between the number of vaccines given to children and the massive rise is autism cases. But they compre kids given all the vaccines bar one, to kids given all vaccines plus the extra one.
Anyone who has ever climbed the dodgy ladder that is academia knows the pressure to produce positive findings in order to get more research funding. As a health economist, I was told once by a new employer (and professor) that I had been employed to show that their centre's research was cost-effective. They said, you're either with us or against us. And then I went into government, where nobody ever questioned a single data point. Leave your integrity and conscience at the door.
Although likely not at all novel, my pea-brain tends to picture these types of manipulative research practices as someone throwing their darts at a blank wall, then going over and painting a target on said wall. Always making sure the target itself is big enough that all the darts end up in the bullseye. It is nothing short of stunning how many ways there are to manipulate studies!
I was at a lecture thirty-five or so years ago by the brilliant Dan Murphy. I recall him discussing a study showing that sugar did not cause hyperactivity in children. How did they pull it off? The authors gave the control group an amount of sugar that was off the charts by anyone's measure. Then gave the experimental group of children forty or fifty percent more.
Walla...... No difference between the groups.
Makes for great headlines ----- as long as no one looks at the study. This lecture took place in the era prior to the WWW, when looking at studies was a nightmare unto itself (travel to a university, microfiche, microfilm, card catalogs, 'the stacks', or waiting while the librarian unearthed said journal from the Federal Vault).
That is a similar methodology to the studies showing vaccines don't cause autism.
There is a correlation between the number of vaccines given to children and the massive rise is autism cases. But they compre kids given all the vaccines bar one, to kids given all vaccines plus the extra one.
Your throwing darts then painting the target made me smile. Very apt.
"Always making sure the target itself is big enough that all the darts end up in the bullseye.."
Thus we know the whole thing is a load of bull!
Anyone who has ever climbed the dodgy ladder that is academia knows the pressure to produce positive findings in order to get more research funding. As a health economist, I was told once by a new employer (and professor) that I had been employed to show that their centre's research was cost-effective. They said, you're either with us or against us. And then I went into government, where nobody ever questioned a single data point. Leave your integrity and conscience at the door.