Many non-scientists are confused and dismayed by the constantly changing
advice that comes from medical and other researchers on various issues. One
week, coffee causes cancer; the next, it prevents it. Where should we set the
LDL threshold for taking statins to prevent cardiovascular disease? Does the
radiation from cell phones cause brain tumors?
Some of that confusion is due to the quality of the evidence, which is
dependent on a number of factors, while some is due to the nature of science
itself: We form hypotheses and then perform experiments to test them; as the
data accumulate and various hypotheses are rejected, we become more confident
about what we think we know.
But
it may also be due to current state of science. Scientists themselves are
becoming increasingly concerned about the unreliability – that is, the lack of
reproducibility — of many experimental or observational results.
Investigators who perform research in the laboratory have a high degree
of control over the conditions and variables of their experiments, an integral
part of the scientific method. If there is significant doubt about the results,
they can repeat the experiment. In general, the more iterations, the more
confidence about the accuracy of the results. Finally, if the results are
sufficiently novel and interesting, the researchers submit a description of the
experiments to a reputable journal, where, after review by editors and expert
referees, it is published.
Thus, researchers do the work and, in theory at least, they are subject
to oversight by journal editors (and whoever funds the studies, which is often a
government agency)......To Read More.....
No comments:
Post a Comment