Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share When Research Gets it Wrong, Part 1
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
When Research Gets it Wrong, Part 1
Join expert Vera Thornton and guests Doris Meinerding and Hannah Waterhouse for Part 1 of a thought-provoking look "behind the scenes" of scientific research, to answer the question "Why are research findings sometimes wrong?" Part 2 will air on the first Tuesday of September.
Remember to follow In Plain English on Facebook , Twitter, and Instagram to keep up with the latest announcements! If you are able, please consider becoming a Patron to help support In Plain English!
And check out our Where to Listen page to subscribe to our podcast on your favorite platform!
Disclaimers: Though this episode talks about medical tests, none of the guests are doctors, nor are they your doctor. If you have a question about your own health or medical care, please ask your doctor.
This article and the ensuing discussion should not be misconstrued to support any form of science denialism. As we discuss in the episode, science is a process, not a set of definite facts. Sometimes in this process, new evidence emerges that casts doubt on previous findings. We believe that it is important for scientists to be transparent about this part of the process..
The author of this article, Dr. John Ioannadis, has recently become (in)famous for using his platform as a prominent researcher to downplay the COVID-19 pandemic (https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-john-ioannidis/). His actions are unfortunately a perfect example of one possible pitfall of studies like this that call out issues with research rigor and reproducibility: misconstruing them to mean that no science should be trusted. My goal in making this podcast is to make science better and more accessible to the public, and to give you all the tools to be more educated consumers of scientific news and literature. The big takeaway is this: apply rigorous skepticism to both science that fits your world view and science that challenges it, and be open to changing your mind if the evidence leads you in a different direction from what you originally thought.
Photo Credit: Chokniti Khongchum
View all episodes
By In Plain EnglishJoin expert Vera Thornton and guests Doris Meinerding and Hannah Waterhouse for Part 1 of a thought-provoking look "behind the scenes" of scientific research, to answer the question "Why are research findings sometimes wrong?" Part 2 will air on the first Tuesday of September.
Remember to follow In Plain English on Facebook , Twitter, and Instagram to keep up with the latest announcements! If you are able, please consider becoming a Patron to help support In Plain English!
And check out our Where to Listen page to subscribe to our podcast on your favorite platform!
Disclaimers: Though this episode talks about medical tests, none of the guests are doctors, nor are they your doctor. If you have a question about your own health or medical care, please ask your doctor.
This article and the ensuing discussion should not be misconstrued to support any form of science denialism. As we discuss in the episode, science is a process, not a set of definite facts. Sometimes in this process, new evidence emerges that casts doubt on previous findings. We believe that it is important for scientists to be transparent about this part of the process..
The author of this article, Dr. John Ioannadis, has recently become (in)famous for using his platform as a prominent researcher to downplay the COVID-19 pandemic (https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-john-ioannidis/). His actions are unfortunately a perfect example of one possible pitfall of studies like this that call out issues with research rigor and reproducibility: misconstruing them to mean that no science should be trusted. My goal in making this podcast is to make science better and more accessible to the public, and to give you all the tools to be more educated consumers of scientific news and literature. The big takeaway is this: apply rigorous skepticism to both science that fits your world view and science that challenges it, and be open to changing your mind if the evidence leads you in a different direction from what you originally thought.
Photo Credit: Chokniti Khongchum