Don’t miss multiple posts by BoingBoing’s Maggie Koerth-Baker on the shoddy science behind a recent alarmist report. It’s all the more noteworthy because one of her BB colleagues was at first taken in by the report, requiring an awkward rowback that developed into a crusade of its own against bad activist science. Earlier on Prop 37 and the California political angle here, etc.
4 Comments
It is amazing what passes for research nowadays. You would think a minimum understanding of statistics would be required before you did an experiment. How can you do a study with a small group of test subjects and a much smaller group of control subjects and expect to get meaningful results?
They don’t want meaningful results. They want results that drive their agenda. So called Science cannot be trusted if there is money or agenda at stake. Peer review is meaningless. The only review that should be acceptable is adversarial review – a concerted effort to destroy the researcher’s conclusions. It’s called Red Team opposition.
I wouldn’t surprise me if the control group wasn’t larger before “that unfortunate accident.”
Yeah, they deleted all my comments, then banned me, for making fun of the GMO-phobic.
I’m so ashamed…