Select an article based on a “discovery” or scientific claim and evaluate it based on the “Rough Guide to Spotting Bad Science”. You do not have to locate the actual journal article – we are examining media portrayal of science, so you do not have to go further than the actual news story.
*MUST USE THE ATTACHED GUIDE TO EVALUATE ARTICLE AND DISCUSS EACH POINT .
1. SENSATIONALISED HEADLINES
Headlines of articles are commonly designed to
entice viewers into clicking on and reading the
article. At best, they over-simplify the findings of
research. At worst, they sensationalise and mis
represent them .
2. MISINTERPRETED RESULTS
News articles sometimes distort or misinterpret
the findings of research for the sake of a good
story, intentionally or otherwise. If possible, try
to read the original research, rather than relying
on the article based on it for information.
3. CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
Ma ny companies employ scientists to carry
out and publish research – whilst this does not
necessarily invalidate research, it should be
analysed with this in mind. Resea rch can also be
misrepresented for personal or financial gain.
4. CORRELATION Et CAUSATION
Be wary of confusion of correlation & causation.
Correlation between two variables doesn’t
automatically mean one causes the other. Global
warming has increased since the 1800s, and
pirate numbers decreased, but lack of pirates
doesn’t cause global warming.
5. SPECULATIVE LANGUAGE
()
Speculations from research are just that –
speculation. Be on the look out for words
such as ‘may’, ‘cou ld’, ‘m ight’, and others, as it
is unlikely the research provides hard evidence
for any conclusions they precede.
6. SAMPLE SIZE TOO SMALL
In trials, the smaller a sample size, the lower
the confidence in the results from that sample.
Conclusions drawn should be considered with
this in mind, though in some cases small samples
are unavoidable. It may be cause for suspicion if
a large sample was possible but avoided.
7. UNREPRESENTATIVE SAMPLES
In human trials, researchers will try to select
individuals that are representative of a larger
population. If the sample is different from the
population as a whole, then the conclusions
may well also be different.
8. NO CONTROL GROUP USED
In clinical trials, results from test subjects should
be compared to a ‘control group’ not given the
substance being tested. Groups should also be
allocated randomly. In general experiments, a
control test should be used where all variables
are controlled.
9. NO BLIND TESTING USED
To prevent any bias, subjects should not kn ow if
they are in the test orthe control group. In double
blin d testing, even researchers don ‘t know which
group subjects are in un til after testing. Note,
blin d testing isn’t always feasible, or ethical.
10. ‘CHERRY-PICKED’ RESULTS
This involves selecting data from experiments
which supports the conclusion of the research,
whilst ignoring those that do not. If a research
paper draws conclusions from a selection of its
resu lts, not all, it may be cherry-picking.
11. UNREPLICABLE RESULTS
Results should be replicable by in depen dent
research, an d tested over a wide range of
cond itions (where possible) to ensure they are
generalisable. Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evi dence – that is, much more than
one in depen dent study!
12. JOURNALS Et CITATIONS
Resea rch published to major journals will have
undergone a review process, but can still be
flawed, so should still be evaluated with these
points in mind. Similarly, large numbers of
citations do not always indicate that research is
highly regarded .
• 2014 COMPOUND INTEREST – WWW.COMPOUNDCHEM.COM L@l<[92+W,J
WWW.COMPOUNDCHEM.COM
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
