Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Can anything really stop the science spin snowball?

#1
C C Offline
https://blogs.plos.org/absolutely-maybe/...-snowball/

EXCERPT: With each set of hands study results pass through, there is a chance for another layer of spin to be added or chipped away. Adding is awfully common, though. By the time it gets to the press release stage, the spin can be snowballing fast. The narrative that takes hold can be awfully far removed from what the data bears out.

[...] A couple of years ago, a bioethics commission called it a “hype pipeline”. Every player, from funders to universities, from researchers to journals and the media, seems to have incentives to puff out science hype. A study can even have a hyped-up name before it starts: IMPROVE-IT and MIRACLE, I’m looking at you!

Are we stuck with it? I think we are, as we are with all forms of bias. I think a sizable proportion of the players on the science and journalism sides don’t see themselves as part of the problem, wouldn’t want to do what needs to be done, or just don’t know how. And I don’t think we know how to change that.

But even if we can’t stop science hype, we can whittle away at it, and reduce its impact. [...] However, along with reducing the biases in thinking that increase the amount of research spin and its impact, reducing it is not being studied with anything like the effort needed. Scott Lilienfeld and colleagues wrote this years ago: "…we have made far more progress in cataloguing cognitive biases than in finding ways to correct them."

That’s still true. [...] For example, there was over-interpretation in about a third of papers on diagnostic studies, over half of papers on molecular diagnostic studies, two-thirds of clinical trials with non-significant findings for their primary outcomes, and over 80% of non-randomized studies of interventions.

We don’t know how many readers are susceptible to spin, but some clearly are. Here’s a randomized trial by Isabelle Boutron and colleagues that showed spin can work on clinician readers.[*] And a set of randomized trials that showed it affects consumers, too. (That’s the first publication for a planned prospective meta-analysis of 16 trials.)

There is a bunch of observational studies now suggesting that a chunk of what seems to be media spin could be originating with scientists, not the journalists... (MORE - details)

- - - footnote - - -

[*] Impact of Spin in the Abstracts of Articles Reporting Results of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Field of Cancer - The SPIIN Randomized Controlled Trial (excerpt): Abstracts of articles presenting results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are an essential means of dissemination of research results because they allow for wide, fast, and free broadcast of these results. When results of RCTs are not published, clinicians can decide only from the meeting abstract whether or not to use the treatment in clinical practice. Also, because half of scientific publications are behind a pay wall, for many readers, the abstract is the only accessible part of a published article. Further, readers (eg, physicians, researchers) often decide from the abstract whether or not to obtain more information from the full-text article. However, this mode of dissemination may have serious consequences for patients if abstracts do not present an accurate and unbiased reflection of the trial results.
Reply
#2
Seattle Offline
Have you added any comments or just reposted an article?

In any event, skepticism is all that is needed for this problem. If you see an article entitled "Scientists May Have Found A Cure For Cancer"...you can interpret that to mean that they haven't.
Reply
#3
C C Offline
(Jul 23, 2019 12:22 AM)Seattle Wrote: Have you added any comments or just reposted an article?

In any event, skepticism is all that is needed for this problem. If you see an article entitled "Scientists May Have Found A Cure For Cancer"...you can interpret that to mean that they haven't.


No, but clearly I went too lean with the except. Hopefully remedied that with an Edit. Thanks for pointing it out.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Is psychology good for anything? + Public is OK, it's scientists who are the problem C C 0 63 Oct 5, 2023 05:15 AM
Last Post: C C
  Article Is science really self-correcting? (abstract idealization versus concrete affairs) C C 0 48 Apr 8, 2023 04:06 PM
Last Post: C C
  Science has been in a “replication crisis” for a decade. Have we learned anything? C C 1 147 Oct 15, 2020 05:24 AM
Last Post: Syne



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)