"Compromised science" news/opines (includes retractions, declining academic standards, pred-J, etc)

Depressing that a reputable news organisation should indulge in such unscientific scaremongering. We all know where that can lead, once politicians smell an opportunity to grandstand. Let’s hope this one never takes off.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

‘The Invention of Prehistory’ review: Facing deep time
https://www.wsj.com/arts-culture/bo...dmvelzkuln3&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

EXCERPT: The new science of geology demonstrated that our planet was billions of years old. Because the first documents written by humans only date back about 5,000 years, there was suddenly a lot more blank space to fill in. The concept of “prehistory” was born, a kind of placeholder for the indefinite period preceding the dawn of human civilization.

From its very inception, prehistory was a half-cocked idea. In “The Invention of Prehistory: Empire, Violence, and Our Obsession With Human Origins,” Stefanos Geroulanos surveys many of the fantasies and self-serving myths that have been used to fill in the dangerously wide-open blank space between the emergence of humans and the invention of writing.

“Prehistory is about the present day; it always has been,” writes Mr. Geroulanos, a professor of history at New York University. “Over the 250 or so years that human origins have been pursued, studied, and taught, the countless stories and theories proposed have said a lot more about the current moment than the distant past...” (MORE - details)
_

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The links are behind a paywall. However this looks rather superficial on the face of it. The notion that Bishop Ussher's biblical chronology was what scholars all believed about the age of the earth, before Hutton, Lyell and Darwin, is very naïve. As for the concept of prehistory, all it means is the period of human existence before there were written records. It seems absurd to deny that such a period of time existed. What does he mean, then? It is not clear from the extract of the article I can read.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Apparently, these "permalinks" simply don't last with WSJ, like they do elsewhere -- only holding up for a few hours.

It's not a denial of the time period, but criticism of the motivated speculations projected into prehistory (especially prior to the 20th-century). But probably should have posted it in Philosophy Updates instead of here, since even conventional history has its detractors as a rigid or regionally unbiased academic endeavor.

And toward the end, Geroulanos' evaluation starts sounding a bit like a postcolonialism attack or ideological cherry-picking. Most outlets seem to praise the book, but they often do that with just about any partial or full Woke "social oppression" agenda offering that kicks the tires of the West. In its latter stages, even such criticism of prehistory probably belongs in the moral/ethics philosophical category, too (if / when it's the result of catering to trendy political fashions rather than an impartial eye).

Book Summary
https://www.bookbrowse.com/bb_brief...view_number/18627/the-invention-of-prehistory

EXCERPT: The very idea that there was a human past before recorded history only emerged with the Enlightenment, when European thinkers began to reject faith-based notions of humanity and history in favor of supposedly more empirical ideas about the world.

From the "state of nature" and Romantic notions of virtuous German barbarians to theories about Neanderthals, killer apes, and a matriarchal paradise where women ruled, Geroulanos captures the sheer variety and strangeness of the ideas that animated many of the major thinkers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, including Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Charles Darwin, and Karl Marx.

Yet as Geroulanos shows, such ideas became, for the most part, the ideological foundations of repressive regimes and globe-spanning empires. Deeming other peoples "savages" allowed for guilt-free violence against them; notions of "killer apes" who were our evolutionary predecessors made war seem natural.

The emergence of modern science only accelerated the West's imperialism. The Nazi obsession with race was rooted in archaeological claims about prehistoric IndoGermans; the idea that colonialized peoples could be "bombed back to the Stone Age" was made possible by the technology of flight and the anthropological idea that civilization advanced in stages.
_

 

Sex differences don’t disappear as a country’s equality develops – sometimes they become stronger
https://theconversation.com/sex-dif...evelops-sometimes-they-become-stronger-222932

INTRO: The more gender equal a society is, the more similar men and women will be, adopting more similar interests, personality traits and behavioural patterns. Or so many people seem to believe.

Statements like this might sound like truisms, but science shows reality may be more complicated.

Several studies have found that some psychological sex differences, such as those in personality, are larger in more gender-equal countries. The same goes for countries that are more educated, prosperous and otherwise have better living conditions. This has become known as the gender-equality paradox.

Until recently, it was unclear how widespread this pattern might be. My team, which included research assistant Kare Hedebrant, tried to address that in a recently published study, where we investigated which psychological sex differences are associated with living conditions and, if so, how... (MORE - missing details)
_

 

I’m pleased by this finding. It implies there really are intrinsic differences between the sexes, in line with my experience, and that greater freedom for women allows them to express their strengths and have them properly appreciated.

I have always felt it was nonsense that differences between the sexes are all the result of social conditioning.

 

Further investigation ahead, though. Might be subcultural, and thereby a correctable balance possibly achievable.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

Dogma undermined? Female and male physicians practice medicine differently.
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1041811

Treatment from female doctors leads to lower mortality and hospital readmission rates

INTRO: Patients have lower rates of mortality and hospital readmissions when treated by female physicians, with female patients benefitting more than their male counterparts, new research suggests.

The mortality rate for female patients was 8.15% when treated by female physicians vs. 8.38% when the physician was male—a clinically significant difference, the researchers found. While the difference for male patients was smaller, female physicians still had the edge with a 10.15% mortality rate compared with male doctors’ 10.23% rate.

The researchers found the same pattern for hospital readmission rates. The study is published in the peer-reviewed journal Annals of Internal Medicine.

Patient outcomes should not differ between male and female physicians if they practice medicine the same way, said Dr. Yusuke Tsugawa, associate professor-in-residence of medicine in the division of general internal medicine and health services research at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and the study’s senior author.

“What our findings indicate is that female and male physicians practice medicine differently, and these differences have a meaningful impact on patients' health outcomes,” said Tsugawa, who is also an associate professor of health policy and management at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health. “Further research on the underlying mechanisms linking physician gender with patient outcomes, and why the benefit of receiving the treatment from female physicians is larger for female patients, has the potential to improve patient outcomes across the board.” (MORE - details, no ads)
_

 

Scientists exaggerate how ethical they are in doing science
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...ggerate-how-ethical-they-are-in-doing-science

New study finds most scientists rate themselves higher or equal to peers in their research practice ethics. They also rate their field as more ethical than other fields. One important implication is that this overconfidence may lead to ethical blindspots.

[...] These results should surprise us for a couple of reasons. One is that they go against the popular narrative of scientists as objective and neutral...
_

 

Send lawyers, Einstein and Maugham: Authors object to PLOS ONE retraction
https://retractionwatch.com/2024/04...augham-authors-object-to-plos-one-retraction/

Here’s a tale of a paper retracted because other articles published years later seemed to plagiarize it – and its unhappy authors, whose behavior the journal says hints at paper mill activity...

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Controversial rocket scientist in India threatens legal action after journals pull papers
https://retractionwatch.com/2024/04...tens-legal-action-after-journals-pull-papers/

A professor of aerospace engineering in India who developed a scientific theory critics call “absolute nonsense” said he is suing journal editors and publishers for pulling three papers he claims could help protect “millions of lives...”
_

 

How much trust do people have in 45 different types of scientists?
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1042555

INTRO: Understanding why some people trust scientists more than others is a key factor in solving social problems with science. But little was known about the trust levels across the diverse range of scientific fields and perspectives. Recognizing this gap, researchers from the University of Amsterdam investigated trust in scientists across 45 fields. They found that, in general, people do trust scientists, but the level of trust varies greatly depending on the scientist's field, with political scientists and economists being trusted the least.

Scientists are on the front lines of tackling some of the world's biggest challenges, from climate change and biodiversity loss to pandemics and social inequalities. With these pressing issues at hand, there is a growing expectation that scientists will actively participate in shaping policies that affect us all. At the same time, concerns have risen about people’s trust in scientists, as not everyone has enough faith in scientists to use their ideas to solve the pressing issues. This lack of trust poses a significant barrier to the implementation of scientific solutions... (MORE - details, no ads)
_

 

Well he's obviously just a nutcase. Hardly worth a mention on this thread, I'd have thought.

 

Excluding the off-site "Weekend reads", Retraction Watch has apparently been strapped for content with respect to the last two ending Fridays. An interlude like that is probably a good sign (temporarily), but perhaps has them scratching for something to serve up.
_

 

Psychology researcher loses PhD after allegedly using husband in study and making up data
https://retractionwatch.com/2024/04...ly-using-husband-in-study-and-making-up-data/

A psychology researcher already under fire for several questionable studies has had her PhD revoked by a university tribunal that found it likely she fabricated data in her thesis.
_

 

Hmm, while this says nothing about this researcher’s nationality, I am getting the impression there is a lot of bad science emanating from China. Also a lot of flaky or predatory journals with Chinese ownership, e.g. this operation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing

 

Another, recent, Nature article milking the Ranga Dias misdeeds for some general lecturing.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Retractions are part of science, but misconduct isn’t — lessons from a superconductivity lab
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01174-6

Journals, funders and institutions that employ researchers all want to produce or disseminate rigorous scientific knowledge — and all can learn lessons from misconduct cases...

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

Since the below involves a WSJ pay or register wall, the permalink may not work in some regions, or could fail for everybody at some point (hours, days, weeks).
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Star scientist’s claim of ‘reverse aging’ draws hail of criticism
https://www.wsj.com/health/wellness...ey5c3iehynl&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

EXCERPT: Harvard geneticist David Sinclair’s work is published regularly in top-tier scientific journals and has brought attention to an emerging field vying for credibility and funding. He has parlayed his research into hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in various companies, more than 50 patents and prominence as a longevity influencer.

Along the way, his claims—especially in his social-media posts, interviews and his book—have drawn criticism from scientists who have accused him of hyping his research and extolling unproven products, including some from companies in which he had a financial interest... (MORE - details)
_

 

Why it’s essential to study sex and gender, even as tensions rise
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01207-0

This week, Nature is launching a collection of opinion articles on sex and gender in research. Further articles will be published in the coming months. The series will highlight the necessity and challenges of studying a topic that is both hugely under-researched and, increasingly, the focus of arguments worldwide — many of which are neither healthy nor constructive...
_

 

Publisher retracts more than a dozen papers at once for likely paper mill activity
https://retractionwatch.com/2024/04...apers-at-once-for-likely-paper-mill-activity/

The Scottish Medical Journal has retracted more than a dozen papers dating back to 2020 after concluding the articles were likely produced by one or more paper mills...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Cureus retracts paper for plagiarism following Retraction Watch inquiries
https://retractionwatch.com/2024/04...giarism-following-retraction-watch-inquiries/

The journal Cureus has retracted a 2022 paper on cancer and the environment just weeks after RW raised questions about apparent plagiarism in the article...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A study of C-section scars – in women who hadn’t undergone the surgery
https://retractionwatch.com/2024/05...ars-in-women-who-hadnt-undergone-the-surgery/

A study purportedly of scars left by caesarean sections included women yet to undergo the surgery, say sleuths. But an investigation into the research by the author’s employer and the journal that published it found no evidence of research misconduct...
_

 

2022 psilocybin "Nature Medicine" study remains uncorrected
https://eiko-fried.com/psilocybin-2022-study-remains-uncorrected/

I just saw that the Daws et al. 2022 paper that was heavily discussed in 2022 and 2023 is still online, and "Nature Medicine" neither published criticism that has been raised, nor did they publish an expression of concern or correction...

- - - - - - - - - -

Junk science is cited in abortion ban cases. Researchers are fighting the ‘fatally flawed’ works
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/28/junk-science-papers-abortion-cases

The retraction of three peer-reviewed articles prominently cited in court cases on the so-called abortion pill – mifepristone – has put a group of papers by anti-abortion researchers in the scientific limelight...

- - - - - - - - - -

So you’ve found research fraud. Now what?
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/24140581/francesca-gino-research-fraud-dishonesty-meta-science

Harvard dishonesty researcher Francesca Gino faked her research. But she still has a lot to teach us. [For instance] when it is alleged that a scientist has manipulated data behind their published papers, there’s an important but miserable project ahead: looking through the rest of their published work to see if any of that is fabricated as well...
_

 

The "Washington Post" caters to past lives
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/washington-post-on-past-lives/

INTRO (Steven Novella): Generally speaking, the mainstream media does a terrible job of reporting anything in the realm of pseudoscience or the paranormal. The Washington Post’s recent article on children who apparently remember their past lives is no exception. Journalists generally don’t have the background or skill set necessary to deal with these often complex topics. They also don’t seem to care... (MORE - details)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The unscientific "Scientific American"
https://www.city-journal.org/article/unscientific-american?skip=1

Science journalism surrenders to [radical] progressive ideology.

EXCERPTS: Michael Shermer got his first clue that things were changing at Scientific American in late 2018. The author had been writing his “Skeptic” column for the magazine since 2001. [...] “I started to see the writing on the wall toward the end of my run there,” Shermer told me. “I saw I was being slowly nudged away from certain topics.”

[...] Shermer dug his grave deeper by quoting Manhattan Institute fellow Heather Mac Donald and The Coddling of the American Mind authors Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, who argue that the rise of identity-group politics undermines the goal of equal rights for all...

[...] Today’s journalistic failings don’t owe simply to lazy reporting or a weakness for sensationalism but to a sweeping and increasingly pervasive worldview. It is hard to put a single name on this sprawling ideology. It has its roots both in radical 1960s critiques of capitalism and in the late-twentieth-century postmodern movement that sought to “problematize” notions of objective truth.... (MORE - details)
_

 

Yeah but the City Journal article is by some shill at an American right wing wank tank, called the Manhattan Institute. These organisations are two a penny in the US, funded by right wing businessmen, and their purpose is purely political. He starts reasonably enough about Shermer’s experiences at Scientific American but then runs up the Jolly Roger with generalised sweeping and rather absurd claims about suppression of contrary views on climate change and Covid. A leftwing editorial bias at Sci Am does not mean climate science is flaky, for example, though that is what he tries to suggest.