Politicians are throwing billions of dollars at coronavirus vaccine trials, but the real cost of research is the one thing we’re lacking – time.
Science is happening fast and mistakes are being made
Yagi Studio/ DigitalVision via Getty Images
Researchers, scientific journals and health agencies are doing everything they can to speed up coronavirus research. The combination of pace and panic during this pandemic is causing mistakes.
Announcement of the Nobel Prize in Economics to Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo and Michael Kremer (from left to right on the screen) during a press conference held at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in Stockholm on 14 October 2019.
The 2019 Nobel Prize in Economics pays tribute to randomized control trials, but can they really help us fight poverty?
Putting scientific results under the microscope before they are even collected could help improve science as a whole.
Researchers rarely collect information that lets them to compare their results with what was believed beforehand. If they did, it could help spot new or important findings more readily.
George Christensen and Bob Katter seem to be using the science replication crisis to cast doubt on research findings that farmers don’t like.
Mick Tsikas/AAP Image
Across science, only around half of published results can be successfully replicated. But while this is a serious problem, the proposed public audit looks like a political bid to cast doubt on science.
Caesarean delivery alone does not contribute to the odds of a child developing autism or ADHD.
A new study has found a link between being born by caesarean section and having a greater chance of being diagnosed with autism or ADHD. But there’s no evidence caesarean sections cause them.
What you find depends on what you’re looking for.
Some people argue the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you just need to keep looking. But there are occasions where finding no evidence is all you can do.
Some studies don’t hold up to added scrutiny.
PORTRAIT IMAGES ASIA BY NONWARIT/shutterstock.com
Rising evidence shows that many psychology studies don’t stand up to added scrutiny. The problem has many scientists worried – but it could also encourage them to up their game.
Some scientists think it’s time to hang up statistical significance.
Two prestigious journals have suggested abandoning the traditional test of the strength of a study’s results. But a statistician worries that this would make science worse.
Law and science seek proof in similar ways, but at very different speeds.
What is proof? In both law and science, it’s basically a consensus of experts – but they work at very different speeds. That means juries may reach verdicts on an issue before the science is settled.
Doubting Thomas needed the proof, just like a scientist, and now is a cautionary Biblical example.
An evolutionary biologist makes the case that there’s no reconciling science and religion. In the search for truth, one tests hypotheses while the other relies on faith.
Scientists are facing a reproducibility crisis.
Y Photo Studio/shutterstock.com
Science is in a reproducibility crisis. This is driven in part by invalid statistical analyses that happen long after the data are collected – the opposite of how things are traditionally done.
A new statistical test lets scientists figure out if two groups are similar to one another.
A new statistical test lets researchers search for similarities between groups. Could this help keep new important findings out of the file drawer?
Most people never have the chance to see how animals live in laboratories.
Since 2012, more than 120 of Britain’s universities, research institutions and pharmaceutical companies have signed a public pledge committing them to greater openness in their animal research programs.
Scientific pursuits need to be coupled with a humanist tradition — to highlight not just how psychedelics work, but why that matters.
Once associated with mind-control experiments and counter-cultural defiance, psychedelics now show great promise for mental health treatments and may prompt a re-evaluation of the scientific method.
Machine learning is changing the world in ways that we are just beginning to appreciate. But could it change the way we do science and the reasons why we do science?
Academic journals rely on peer review to support editors in making decisions about what to publish.
There’s peer review – and then there’s peer review. With more knowledge you can dive in a little deeper and make a call about how reliable a science paper really is.
Peer review takes time – around seven to eight hours per paper if done properly.
Key areas of focus for tweaking peer review include making journal editors more directive in the process, rewarding reviewers, and improving accountability of editors, reviewers and authors.
From human ‘gills’ to reproducing rock, evidence hasn’t always pointed scientists in the right direction.
Sea ice off of East Antarctica’s Princess Astrid Coast.
Geospatial data offers a powerful new way to see the world. But these high-tech images can be misleading or incomplete.