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

I don't know about that. Maybe just address the current policy of maximum quantity with zero consideration for quality? It's working exactly as designed: a tool for academic promotion that has almost nothing to do with scientific progress.

Or, sure, go radical but changing an explicit standard built on perverse incentives is a lot easier to accomplish, and would actually address the issue.

Somehow, doing something wrong produces poor results. Who knew?
 
Merged thread

Science is political - and that's a bad thing, Ritchie, May 2022

From Stuart Ritchie's Science Fictions substack. A long read but covers some topical issues - and nicely ironic from a KCL academic.

Science is political - and that's a bad thing audio = https://stuartritchie.substack.com/p/science-is-political-audio

"Imagine you heard a scientist saying the following:

I’m being paid massive consultation fees by a pharmaceutical company who want the results of my research to turn out in one specific way. And that’s a good thing. I’m proud of my conflicts of interest. I tell all my students that they should have conflicts if possible. On social media, I regularly post about how science is inevitably conflicted in one way or another, and how anyone criticising me for my conflicts is simply hopelessly naive.

I hope this would at least cause you to raise an eyebrow. And that’s because, whereas this scientist is right that conflicts of interest of some kind are probably inevitable, conflicts are a bad thing" ......................>

>................ To repeat: I don’t think it’s possible to fully remove politics from science. But it’s not all-or-nothing - the point is to get as close to non-political science as we can. By following some of the above steps (and I’m sure you can think of many other ways - another one that’s been discussed is the idea of adversarial collaboration), we can combat misrepresentation of research by using high-quality research of our own.

This is all rather like the discussion of the “Mertonian norms” of science, which are supposed to be the ethos of the whole activity - universalism (no matter who says it, we evaluate a claim the same way), communalism (we share results and methods around the community), organised scepticism (we constantly subject all results to unforgiving scrutiny), and, most relevant to our discussion here, disinterestedness (scientists don’t have a stake in their results turning out one way or another). These aren’t necessarily descriptions of how science is right now, but they’re aspirational - we should do our best to organise the system so it leans towards them. The idea that we should loudly and proudly bring in our political ideologies does violence to these already-fragile norms.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Merged thread

Stuart Ritchie: Everything you need to know about breastfeeding and intelligence (2022)

I am posting this blog post from Stuart Ritchie in the research methodology section because it explains in quite simple terms and with good examples many methodological points in psychology, social science and medical research. It could be a good introduction for those who aren’t familiar with these concepts or who need a reminder.
Even if you aren’t interested in the debate around breastfeeding per se, there’s still plenty to get stuck into: this question has all sorts of weighty methodological issues, like observational versus experimental research; confounding; blinding; meta-analysis; inconsistent and ambiguous studies; hype and overstatement; and much more.
Click to expand...

It is an entertaining but lengthy read as Stuart Ritchie digs into the data of the studies he mentions. The post is broken into different sections, so you can pick up where you left off without much hassle.

https://stuartritchie.substack.com/p/breastfeeding-iq
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Merged thread

Science isn't storytelling

An article with dreadful advice for scientists reminds us that not everyone has learned the lessons from the replication crisis

"And in conclusion, that’s why you should agree that science isn’t storytelling. Thanks for reading the Science Fictions Substack.
…
Oh, sorry - did you find that a little jarring? I started this article with its conclusion! That’s because I’ve just read an editorial—first published last year but currently getting some attention on Twitter—from the journal Marine Life Science and Technology, which offers just this advice to scientists: they should write their scientific papers backwards.

The editorial—entitled “Finding Your Scientific Story By Writing Backwards”—argues that a scientific paper needs to have “take-home messages”. These are the big points that conclude the “scientific story” told by the paper - a story which, developed correctly, will “increase the impact of your work and the likelihood of it being accepted in highly rated journals”. "

More at link: https://stuartritchie.substack.com/p/science-isnt-storytelling

Also of note:
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The good thing about stores like this is that it has at least a possibility of forcing people to re-examine what science is, and maybe rework the present "publish or perish" system to foster good science, rather than rewarding stories.
 
JohnTheJack said:
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

That lack of openness is also what caused a firestorm about the PACE trial, a study of exercise and psychotherapy for chronic fatigue syndrome published by the journal in 2011. This was a classic demonstration of the importance of transparency: critics of the study (of whom there are many) had to make a Freedom of Information request and wait years to see the data — at which point their re-analysis showed far less impressive results than the original.
Click to expand...
Article conclusion:

The purpose of the Lancet, back in 1823, was to slice away the immorality and complacency of the medical establishment. Although there are many similarities between Wakley and Horton — both using catty editorials to attack their opponents, though only the latter with access to Twitter — Wakley would have been stunned to see that his journal now exemplifies that establishment. It embodies an unaccountable or only partially accountable elite that does often make progress, but fails abjectly to face up to its many faults.

In 2021, we might find that the best rejoinder to our establishment isn’t a new Wakley-style journal, but an entirely new way to think about science and how it’s published: a way that doesn’t hand over all our trust to editors and reviewers, but that emphasises openness and transparency right from the start. There are several proposals for how it could happen. The next rotten thing that needs to be cut away could be the journal system — and the Lancet itself.
Click to expand...


Article conclusion:
Click to expand...

Hard to disagree with this - seems to chime in conclusions with other discussions from other authors that are on here currently.

My bolding
 
Merged thread

Science: 5 things you can do to stop getting tricked by bad science writing in 2023, Ritchie

i News

Science: 5 things you can do to stop getting tricked by bad science writing in 2023

Stuart Ritchie

"Genuine scientific breakthroughs are few and far between, and misinformation is rife – here are i’s tips on how to sort the real stories from the conspiracies, fakes and exaggerations

If you regularly read about science in the news, it’s easy to end up misinformed. Whether it’s a newspaper article whipping up a health scare (or promoting a miracle cure) on the basis of a shoddy study, or a fabulously exciting “breakthrough” that you never hear of again, we’ve all ended up disappointed by science news.

Last year was no exception. Every month brought with it a science story that was subject to hype, overstatement, or just plain incorrect reporting – often aided and abetted by scientists themselves.

But every time things go wrong, we can try to learn a lesson. So the following are five scientific new year’s resolutions: five ways to ensure that we aren’t misled by reading about science in 2023."

Full article: https://inews.co.uk/news/stop-tricked-bad-science-reporting-2063504 (may need registration)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stuart Ritchie has been interviewed on Radio 4 by Helen Lewis in her series called The Spark on 14th March 2023.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001k0ky

Stuart Ritchie and open science
Helen Lewis meets science writer Stuart Ritchie to discuss how science has lost its way, and what can be done about it. Ritchie explains how dubious experiments he spotted as a young academic spurred him to write his book Science Fictions: Exposing Fraud, Bias, Negligence and Hype in Science. He tells Helen why he has chosen to leave academia to become a science journalist. And he sets out why he thinks a radically more transparent approach, 'open science', could address the problems he has identified.
 
Introduction to the podcast:
Stuart Ritchie is a former lecturer in Psychology at Kings College London who is now a science writer for the Independent...

He talks about the replication crisis in psychology.

He advocates open science where all the data is made available.

Edit to add:
And the whole publication process to change so journals publish research plans before the research is carried out, that's peer reviewed, and the journal agrees to publish the research after it's done provided it follows the agreed plan, regardless of outcomes. And publish the peer reviews as well.
 
Last edited:
Considering SJR's role at KCL's Institute of Psychiatry, and that GDS is Esther Crawley's mentor, recently retweeted Paul Garner's death threat diatribe, his involvement in the dispute about PACE as part of an editor for the Journal of Health Psychology (on the side of PACE), and his authorship of a chapter in a book on Psychosocial Medicine edited by Peter White, that seems to be an accurate interpretation.

Sad to see such eminent scientists succumbing to the pitfalls of tribalism, but birds of a feather stick together. Especially when the stench of hypocrisy gets overwhelming, I guess. Makes all the proselytizing about questionable research practices seem a little insubstantial.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure we nearly had George Davey Smith and Esther Crawley running MEGA - the proposed big genetic study of ME/CFS. Thank goodness that bullet was dodged.
GDS gave a tribute at Garner's farewell.
 
Merged thread

"Helen Lewis meets science writer Stuart Ritchie to discuss how science has lost its way - and how a radically more transparent approach, 'open science', could address the problem."
BBC Radio 4 -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001k0ky

One take away, for me, was the recommendation that all of the raw data should be made available i.e. along with the publication/paper.
Lots that folks here are familiar with, outcome switching ----
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Charles B. said:
I would interpret them as suggesting Royal Free is a mass hysteria event, and that Wessely should write about both that incident and it’s progeny, I.e. ME. I could be misreading this, but I sadly think it’s just another instance of ME patients being a favorable punching bag
Click to expand...

It’s the obvious and straightforward interpretation. There is no other way to read it. The three year time difference is irrelevant to interpretation.

It doesn’t mean his thoughts about science in general are uninteresting, just that there is no prospect of this particular person taking up arms against the poor scientific practice which directly concerns us.
 
Shadrach Loom said:
It’s the obvious and straightforward interpretation. There is no other way to read it. The three year time difference is irrelevant to interpretation.

It doesn’t mean his thoughts about science in general are uninteresting, just that there is no prospect of this particular person taking up arms against the poor scientific practice which directly concerns us.
Click to expand...

I agree. At first I thought he must be joking and having a dig at SW, but the context makes it clear he isn't joking at all. Hard to take him seriously after reading that, and I found it concerning; I don't think three years is relevant at all unless he has repudiated this kind of thinking entirely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom