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

J

JohnTheJack

Moderator
Staff member
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

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...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
Michiel Tack said:
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?
Click to expand...
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:


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:
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Does it strike you as odd that so many people tuned in to hear about a doctored speedrun of a children’s video game, while barely a ripple was made—even among scientists—by the discovery of more than 80 fake scientific papers?
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
DokaGirl said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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: :(
 
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:
An older academic in my previous university department used to keep all his scientific journals in recycled cornflakes boxes. On entering his office, you’d be greeted by a wall of Kellogg’s roosters, occupying shelf upon shelf, on packets containing various issues of Journal of Experimental Psychology, Psychophysiology, Journal of Neuropsychology, and the like. It was an odd sight, but there was method to it: if you didn’t keep your journals organised, how could you be expected to find the particular paper you were looking for?
Click to expand...

I wonder what cereal boxes Crawley keeps her hundreds of scientific papers in? Any guesses?
 
I wonder what cereal boxes Crawley keeps her hundreds of scientific papers in? Any guesses?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Snowdrop said:
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.
Click to expand...
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".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom