When the clinical epidemiologist John Ioannidis published a paper entitled
"Why most published research findings are false" in 2005, he made a lot of
scientists very uncomfortable. The study was the result of 15 years' work
cataloguing the factors that plague the interpretation of scientific
results, such as the misuse of statistics or poor experimental design.
Ioannidis tells Jim Giles why his conclusion is not as depressing as it
appeared, and what he is doing to improve matters
You've been described as the "man who would prove all studies wrong". What
was it like to find yourself in this role?
Overall, the reaction I got was very positive. People should not feel
threatened by me:science is an evolutionary process, and contradiction and
falsification are part of the game. We have tons of literature and a lot of
it will eventually be refuted, but that is not bad news. If a small
proportion is correct and survives then we will have progress.
How did you end up taking on the whole of science?
My parents were physicians and I trained in internal medicine. I wanted to
deal with people and feel that I could improve their health, but I liked
mathematics too. It was difficult for me to choose between the two. Then in
1993, I met Tom Chalmers and Joseph Lau. Tom was one of the first people to
run a clinical trial and probably the first physician to combine the results
of several studies in a meta-analysis - he and Joseph described cumulative
meta-analysis in 1992. They introduced me to the idea of evidence-based
medicine. That meeting had a great influence on me. It showed me how to
inject robust quantitative thinking into clinical work.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19726432.000-interview-...
- - - - -<><> - - - - -
I suppose it all depends upon who the "peers" are that review scientific
papers. But I have said all along that most science is bad science.
Results that do not go along with the pre-conceived conclusion are ignored,
and only supporting ones are used. Sometimes, the facts are altered a bit,
to make the result favorable. Einstein even did this by manufacturing a
"constant" to make his second relativity equations appear to work. No
search for the truth, just a "what crap can we come up with to justify this"
paper.
I think all the peers reviewing scientific works, just like Rodney king,
just want to go along to get along, and science gets hosed in the end. (No
pun intended). Political correctness and don't make waves has combined with
the pressure to crank out volumes of scientific papers, and the credibility
factor has plummeted to near zero for most scientific "authors". From
global warming to wine causes cancer. Tomorrow, they say wine is good for
you, next week they will say beef causes cancer. A year from now they will
say beef does not cause cancer, it you consume less that half a cow a year
(entrails excepted). Society pays through the nose, following all of the
scientists recommendations based on voodoo science, and they change 180
degrees in a couple of years when another voodoo practitioner comes up with
the latest peer reviewed voodoo theory.
Since this guy is a MD/mathematician, he has not looked at geology, yet, I
don't think he understands it, but he may convert a few geo experts to use
his methods of analysis to question the validity of many theories in the
future.
"Of course it is the truth, I make up the truth, that is why it is true"
Augusto Pinochet, Presidente, Dictator, Senator, Chile
- - - - -</> <\> - - - - -
