1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for CFS here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 18th March 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Stuart Ritchie, science journalist, articles on science fraud and open science

Discussion in 'Research methodology news and research' started by JohnTheJack, Jun 24, 2021.

  1. JohnTheJack

    JohnTheJack Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,350
    How the Lancet lost our trust Stuart Ritchie The Spectator (UK) 26/06/2021


    A few of us have tried to get Ritchie interested in the PACE trial, but he has previously refused. But since it now seems to support his argument, he does cautiously mention it.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-the-lancet-lost-our-trust

    Article conclusion:

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 23, 2023
  2. TiredSam

    TiredSam Committee Member

    Messages:
    10,482
    Location:
    Germany
    The Spectator never even had my trust. A publication which boasts Rod Liddle as associate editor and columnist isn't something I'd wipe my dog's arse with.
     
    shak8, Sarah94, ukxmrv and 24 others like this.
  3. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,300
    Location:
    Canada
    More could have been made of the fact that Horton's behavior towards critics of the Wakefield paper has been the same as with PACE. A pattern of misbehavior means a lot here, especially what it implies for PACE, that he's wrong about it.

    But whatever it's starting to show the cracks in the armor.
     
    alktipping, Sarah94, sebaaa and 17 others like this.
  4. ME/CFS Skeptic

    ME/CFS Skeptic Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,495
    Location:
    Belgium
    Looks like a good article. Most of what Stuart Ritchie writes is interesting and to the point.

    Does anyone know more about him or has anyone read his recent book?
     
    alktipping, lycaena, sebaaa and 6 others like this.
  5. MSEsperanza

    MSEsperanza Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,855
    Location:
    betwixt and between
  6. MSEsperanza

    MSEsperanza Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,855
    Location:
    betwixt and between
  7. Robert 1973

    Robert 1973 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,281
    Location:
    UK
    I’ve not read his books but heard him on BBC radio 4 and read reviews.

    I tried to engage with him on Twitter once but no reply:
    https://twitter.com/user/status/1278384536653565952


    I assumed that his KCL connection (he is a lecturer at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience at KCL) would inhibit him from writing anything about PACE or KCL’s low quality ME/CFS research, so I’m surprised, and pleased, to see him mentioning PACE in the Spectator article.

    [Edit: I deleted my initial post because I hadn’t read the article at the top when I responded to Michiel’s question.]
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2021
    alktipping, lycaena, Michelle and 9 others like this.
  8. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,483
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
  9. ME/CFS Skeptic

    ME/CFS Skeptic Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,495
    Location:
    Belgium
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 23, 2023
    bobbler, Noir, SallyC and 24 others like this.
  10. ME/CFS Skeptic

    ME/CFS Skeptic Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,495
    Location:
    Belgium
    Quote from the article:

    "If unpaid Minecraft mods can produce a 29-page mathematical analysis of Dream’s contested run, then scientists and editors can find the time to treat plausible fraud allegations with the seriousness they deserve."​
     
  11. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,300
    Location:
    Canada
    That actually made me laugh when I saw it because absolutely speed runners are 100x more rigorous in their methodology than almost anything done in medical research, at least wherever technology can't be used (i.e. everything psychosocial). They genuinely care about accuracy and validity in ways that you simply don't find in most medical research and is nowhere to be found wherever BPS stuff creeps in. Hell I've seen gamers make detailed analyses, with stats and numbers, of popular games that are above and beyond almost everything produced in BPS land. And other people check their work, the peer review is on substance, data, not just style.

    Problem is cheating is rampant in research and especially in medicine, it just makes everything easier. So there are few incentives to denounce it, similar to why political parties have no incentive to change an electoral system that got them elected. In gaming people care deeply and cheaters are vilified. In medicine cheaters are too often awarded and praised, the determination is almost completely arbitrary. Just look at how Cochrane's shoddy work was handled. It entirely depends who you cheated.

    The issue really is caring. Gamers care. Too much. In medicine there are no personal stakes other than in success, real or not, no skin in the game. Whatever happens as a result almost never affects the researchers, other than in the form of being richly rewarded when they do pull off cheating. They are simply too detached from what happens.

    I'm sure this started out as tongue-in-cheek but it's a simple truth.
     
    Hutan, boolybooly, Sisyphus and 15 others like this.
  12. DokaGirl

    DokaGirl Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,664
    Some observations, and some speculation as to why gamers are better than scientists at catching fraud:

    - post secondary institutions encourage connections among related disciplines
    - these connections may later help one's career, business, research funding etc.
    -there is more at stake for scientist whistle blowers
    - there seems to be the belief that professionals are ethical, above reproach, doing the best in their field for patients, and society
    - scientists may be more conservative, reluctant to rock the boat

    There are probably many other reasons.
     
    Hutan, boolybooly, Midnattsol and 5 others like this.
  13. Hoopoe

    Hoopoe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,234
    It seems to me that a part of the problem is that scientists are seen as noble human beings that can do no wrong, or would like to be seen as such. The suggestion that one of them might have behaved badly is a transgression of social norms. This invites fraud and other bad behaviour.

    A more realistic view is that are fallible humans who need some oversight.
     
  14. TiredSam

    TiredSam Committee Member

    Messages:
    10,482
    Location:
    Germany
    Reminds me of the online poker boom when various cheats and even casinos were caught out by dedicated players who got the data and knew what to do with it. Also online chess sites are good at catching cheats. For some reason it really matters to gamers. Those who don't follow the rules and play fair incite outrage.

    That ship seems to have sailed long ago in scientific research, where various devices to portray results favourably seem commonplace and are met with a glumly amused world weary shrug. Such behaviour has become part of the game, rather than an outrageous rule breach. Perhaps because the whole system of publishing and building scientific careers promotes it, leading to an attitude of, "well, how else are you supposed to get on in science?" I wonder if scientists are reluctant to call each other out because they think "there but for the grace of God ..."

    Also, when a gamer is caught cheating, it's the gaming community against an individual, and applying the laws of probability to the individual's results to demonstrate they are impossible isn't that complicated. When a scientist is caught cheating, it's often a whole community of educational establishments, publishers, insurance companies and government policy makers against the individual crying foul, who then has to prove complicated points of methodology which few lay people understand or are interested in whilst the whole community launches a PR machine against them.

    Not really, sorry. Depressing and wrong certainly, but not particularly odd.

    Love it. Didn't we do that for the PACE Trial? But for years we just couldn't find anyone who was interested, and the PR machine made sure we weren't heard.

    I keep coming across Stuart Ritchie and have just downloaded his book "Science Fictions" to audible. I might become a fan.
     
    alktipping, Hutan, Michelle and 11 others like this.
  15. shak8

    shak8 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,204
    Location:
    California
    My impression (a year of working as a clinical research coordinator for a cardiologist in the USA) is that MDs who commit fraud are lightly punished. Some squeak by with only a few years of not being able to do a clinical trial. Few are banned for life.

    Physicians are god-like (if no longer to the public, they are to themselves and the clinical research corporations) so their sins are not taken seriously.
     
    alktipping, Hutan, bobbler and 6 others like this.
  16. DokaGirl

    DokaGirl Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,664
    Sins not taken seriously - absolutely, @shak8

    Not just doctors, but others higher up in the health care hierarchy. It may take many, many years, and a trail of harm before some are brought to any kind of justice, such as it is. And, after a bit of a slap on the wrist they can go back to practice. :wtf: :banghead: :(
     
  17. CRG

    CRG Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,857
    Location:
    UK
    Merged thread

    Guardian article: The big idea: should we get rid of the scientific paper? by Stuart Ritchie, 2022


    Article in the Guardian Newspaper - available on line
    The big idea: should we get rid of the scientific paper?

    "Consider the messy reality of scientific research. Studies almost always throw up weird, unexpected numbers that complicate any simple interpretation. But a traditional paper – word count and all – pretty well forces you to dumb things down. If what you’re working towards is a big, milestone goal of a published paper, the temptation is ever-present to file away a few of the jagged edges of your results, to help “tell a better story”. Many scientists admit, in surveys, to doing just that – making their results into unambiguous, attractive-looking papers, but distorting the science along the way."

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/apr/11/the-big-idea-should-we-get-rid-of-the-scientific-paper
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 23, 2023
  18. John Mac

    John Mac Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    905
    I wonder what cereal boxes Crawley keeps her hundreds of scientific papers in? Any guesses?
     
  19. Snowdrop

    Snowdrop Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,134
    Location:
    Canada
    LOL. I think we'd need a whole separate thread for all the amusing guesswork on that one.

    This article was written by Stuart Ritchie. I sort of recall him from previously seeing some of his tweets. He seems like a good egg and not away with the fairies when it comes to discussing science.

    Let's hope there starts to be some momentum here to follow up. No knows better that things need to change than we do here.
     
    alktipping and Peter Trewhitt like this.
  20. CRG

    CRG Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,857
    Location:
    UK
    Author of the book "Science Fictions" - brief bio here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_J._Ritchie I'd put him in the class of "psychologist worth paying attention to; a new generation".
     
    Michelle, Peter Trewhitt and Snowdrop like this.

Share This Page