than those who abstained from alcohol altogether. . On the other hand, Goldacre sees things more darkly, suggesting the trouble may be a desire to publish at all costs. And when you do this, you are wrong. The hallowed process of peer review is not all it is cracked up to be, either. When a research that is known to be flawed is allowed to persist, it pollutes the oceans of data upon which new researchers are forced to depend to build their own careers. In the world of research, prestige and competence carries significant weight in attracting funding, and subject matter experts to lead research departments. Therefore, any whiff of failure or incompetence can do serious damage. . Hence living In Unwedded Bliss the shock value of this paper (pdf) in this month's, nature Neuroscience.
Though many experiments lend themselves to a convincing blog post, the actual, log ical casewhat the researchers did that s different from what I do here. Flaws in a study about unintended gene editing snips have led to it s retraction. But that s not the end of the story. Most of us have heard stories about the potential health benefits of drinking alco hol: light-to-moderate drinkers had fewer heart attacks than abstain. Dodgy results are fuelling flawed policy decisions and undermining medical advances.
Yet knowing what is false is as important to science as knowing what is true. The why the Novel Matters research protocol may be weakened by lack of funding and resources. And they could be rising. But its privileged status is founded on the capacity to be right most of the time and to correct its mistakes when it gets things wrong. The reason: The results from Group 1 and from Group 2 are distinct pieces of information. In order to safeguard their exclusivity, the leading journals impose high rejection rates: in excess of 90 of submitted manuscripts. Careerism also encourages exaggeration and the cherry-picking of results. Given the way science is supposed to work, one of those fates is to be expected.