Oct 26, 2024 06:11 PM
(This post was last modified: Oct 26, 2024 06:14 PM by C C.)
RELATED: The value—and risk—of political activism in science
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Progressives should worry more about their favorite scientific findings
https://smallpotatoes.paulbloom.net/p/pr...more-about
EXCERPTS: You may have heard of the study published in PNAS in 2020 concluding that Black newborns have higher survival rates when Black doctors attend to them. It got a huge amount of coverage in the popular press.
[...] The same journal just published a reanalysis of the data. It turns out that the effect disappears once you take into account that Black doctors are less likely to see the higher-risk population of newborns that have low birth weight.
[...] All the same concerns about fraud, poor statistics, and so on apply. But now there’s something else. This sort of finding fits the ideology of most people who review papers for Nature Human Behaviour. It’s the sort of finding that improves the journal's prestige. It’s a result that ends up reported in the New York Times and The Guardian; it will get cited in briefs to the Supreme Court that support progressive policies.
These are all additional reasons, above and beyond the paper’s scientific quality—above and beyond the possibility that the finding is true—that make it more likely to be published. So, while you shouldn’t dismiss the finding entirely, you should take it less seriously... (MORE - details)
If the science disagrees with your agenda...suppress it?
https://www.science20.com/content/if_the...uppress_it
EXCERPTS: Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy is a prominent physician and long-time evangelist for chemical interventions among trans youth and has been conducting those chemical interventions for nearly two decades.
[...] Dr. Olson-Kennedy wanted to do a U.S. study similar to one done in Netherlands which found kids given these interventions were happier.
[...] Dr. Olson-Kennedy and colleagues recruited 95 people, about a quarter of whom were chosen because they were depressed or suicidal, and gave them hormone blockers, with the hypothesis that preventing biological changes would lead to less dysphoria and more happiness. After following them for two years, the results were not what they expected.
They weren't happier.
So Dr. Olson-Kennedy put the results in a drawer - despite the work being taxpayer-funded - and refuses to publish them, not because the data were flawed, but because, she says, “I do not want our work to be weaponized.” She also claims the NIH cut their funding - nine years later - so she couldn't "afford" to publish it. The program got $10 million, $1,000 in a publication fee or time to write up the results wasn't in the original budget?
If none of that reads authentic, you see the problem for public trust in science and why scientists need to take a stand against this kind of overt nefarious behavior even if it is by a political ally. Even postmodernists in philosophy departments see the flaws in her reasoning.
If you insist negative results will be culturally weaponized, it's challenging to deny you were trying to create positive results to weaponize your cause... (MORE - missing details)
RELATED (sciviallge): What is the Cass Review? Even the UK made changes because of it, but not the US
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Progressives should worry more about their favorite scientific findings
https://smallpotatoes.paulbloom.net/p/pr...more-about
EXCERPTS: You may have heard of the study published in PNAS in 2020 concluding that Black newborns have higher survival rates when Black doctors attend to them. It got a huge amount of coverage in the popular press.
[...] The same journal just published a reanalysis of the data. It turns out that the effect disappears once you take into account that Black doctors are less likely to see the higher-risk population of newborns that have low birth weight.
[...] All the same concerns about fraud, poor statistics, and so on apply. But now there’s something else. This sort of finding fits the ideology of most people who review papers for Nature Human Behaviour. It’s the sort of finding that improves the journal's prestige. It’s a result that ends up reported in the New York Times and The Guardian; it will get cited in briefs to the Supreme Court that support progressive policies.
These are all additional reasons, above and beyond the paper’s scientific quality—above and beyond the possibility that the finding is true—that make it more likely to be published. So, while you shouldn’t dismiss the finding entirely, you should take it less seriously... (MORE - details)
If the science disagrees with your agenda...suppress it?
https://www.science20.com/content/if_the...uppress_it
EXCERPTS: Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy is a prominent physician and long-time evangelist for chemical interventions among trans youth and has been conducting those chemical interventions for nearly two decades.
[...] Dr. Olson-Kennedy wanted to do a U.S. study similar to one done in Netherlands which found kids given these interventions were happier.
[...] Dr. Olson-Kennedy and colleagues recruited 95 people, about a quarter of whom were chosen because they were depressed or suicidal, and gave them hormone blockers, with the hypothesis that preventing biological changes would lead to less dysphoria and more happiness. After following them for two years, the results were not what they expected.
They weren't happier.
So Dr. Olson-Kennedy put the results in a drawer - despite the work being taxpayer-funded - and refuses to publish them, not because the data were flawed, but because, she says, “I do not want our work to be weaponized.” She also claims the NIH cut their funding - nine years later - so she couldn't "afford" to publish it. The program got $10 million, $1,000 in a publication fee or time to write up the results wasn't in the original budget?
If none of that reads authentic, you see the problem for public trust in science and why scientists need to take a stand against this kind of overt nefarious behavior even if it is by a political ally. Even postmodernists in philosophy departments see the flaws in her reasoning.
If you insist negative results will be culturally weaponized, it's challenging to deny you were trying to create positive results to weaponize your cause... (MORE - missing details)
RELATED (sciviallge): What is the Cass Review? Even the UK made changes because of it, but not the US