Maddox Prize again

https://www.theguardian.com/science...mi-of-poor-research-says-science-prize-winner

Read and enjoy the ironies.

Apparently the message of a bad paper can now be spread through the internet - something that was never so before.

Well, there was the Lancet.

 

The winner is probably a jolly good sort but Tracey Brown of SAS says:

“The shocking thing about what Elisabeth is doing in challenging fraud and misrepresentation of scientific findings is that this is something that most people think already happens. Only it doesn’t. And in fact she has been unique and often alone in sounding the alarm. The judges were struck by her unstinting determination.”

Hmm.
Better put it in the book.

 

Blik is very active on Twitter which may be both helpful and a hindrance . The catch 22 of whistleblowing.

There are a lot of jaw dropping finds but very few retraction.

 

Example of blind threadc
https://twitter.com/user/status/1465048252747857928

 

What does it say about the people harping about bad science that they miss some of the worst science out there?

Not much, frankly. It says they are not much good at this. Or strongly suggests that things are far worse than what they recognize. Or both. Although so far I am aware of exactly two official skeptics who see through the shoddy science happening in evidence-based medicine applied to chronic health problems (including the non-controversial ones): Sense about Science US (Butterworth) and Coyne. That's the whole list of people who present themselves as science skeptics who recognize the issues here. Everyone else is either gushing about or oblivious to the most massive pile of pseudoscientific crap ever produced.

I'm not sure what the denominator is but I doubt it makes much difference when the worst pseudoscience is not only not acknowledged but often praised by the "science skeptics".

So who will skepticize the skeptics? And who will skepticize the skepticizers of skeptics? And so on.

 

Bik has spotted hundreds of papers with manipulated images and other problems and should be a hero of people who want to improve the integrity of science. Much more deserving of the prize than certain previous recipients..

 

It is an interesting phenomenon and something I am going to spend some time on in my book.

The simplest answer seems to be that a lot of the bad science critics are people who find themselves in science but do not really like science - and particularly do not like high tech Pharma science. They prefer something more touchy-feely. So they bash Pharma and molecular biology. Of the medics a lot are based in primary care or psych.

But one thing is for sure, there is a range of people with different motivations.

No doubt Dr Bik is right to point out double-pasted images. But I came across these in PhDs and work from juniors and I never took a lot of notice because you already knew from the text that you were reading stuff written by people who did not know what they were doing. Cheating shouldn't be there but I doubt that in the past it has very often led the science community astray. Now things may be different because science has lost its way much of the time anyway.

As @rvallee says, the problem is altogether much bigger - science is awash with garbage and the people who are supposed to ensure quality don't care.

If I was still in science actively I am not sure I would not want to give up looking for something exciting in order to pick out cheating. But I might do that simply because it was such an uphill struggle getting anything done. In a way that was why I left in 2010. I am now also picking out cheating but my main focus is still on trying to find answers.

 

How deeply ironic of the Maddox committee. Perhaps they should get their 2021 winner to cast an eye over the work endorsed by their 2012 winner?

 

Yea just checked Wiki:
"In 2012, the John Maddox Prize was awarded to British psychiatrist Simon Wessely and Chinese science writer Shi-min Fang.[2][3] Wessely was recognised for continuing his research on Myalgic Encaphalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome despite criticism from patient groups, and Fang was recognised for his work exposing pseudoscience and fraud as a popular science writer in China. There have been objections to Wessely being awarded the prize, however, due to concerns about his quality of research.[4]"

 

Yes, especially as the new guideline has exposed that the criticisms of Wessely's science were as valid then as they are now.

 

The Maddox award for stubbornly ignoring legit criticism and warnings about the harm being caused.

 

retweeted by Michael Sharpe