# Many Scientific studies are Bullshit we already know **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 31, 2014, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/many-scientific-studies-are-bullshit-we-already-know/680192 "2014-01-31T10:37:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![PaulParkhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@PaulParkhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PaulParkhead)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/many-scientific-studies-are-bullshit-we-already-know/680192/21 "2014-01-31T16:17:35Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > I’d love to see the cites for all the studies mentioned in the OP. Where were they published? Abstracts? I suspect [this](http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2813%2962247-3/fulltext) is the Russian vodka study, from The Lancet. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/many-scientific-studies-are-bullshit-we-already-know/680192/22 "2014-01-31T16:49:25Z")
> [@PaulParkhead](#): > > I suspect [this](http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2813%2962247-3/fulltext) is the Russian vodka study, from The Lancet. Even with a little educated guessing I think that groups like insurance entities in Russia will be able to use that data to make better risk assessments and save money. The point is that regardless that one thinks that some things are so obvious that they should not be investigated, what happens is that studies are not done to benefit the preconceptions of armchair scientists; but are made also to help industry and government to quantify an issue so resources can be used better. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/many-scientific-studies-are-bullshit-we-already-know/680192/23 "2014-01-31T17:04:29Z")
BTW The OP reminded me of another recent disparaging of basic science. The case of the Shrimp On A Treadmill. > [@](#): > > Biologist Lou Burnett was in his car when his cellphone rang recently. It was a CNN reporter, asking about the fact that his research had been featured in a new report about wasteful government spending. > > That was news to Burnett, who works at the College of Charleston in South Carolina. “I was pretty irritated,” he recalls. > > The report, put out by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), , a major government funder of research, saying it squandered taxpayer money on questionable science projects, including one pursued by Burnett and his colleagues that involved putting shrimp on a tiny treadmill. > > Lawmakers and political groups like to point to government spending that seems wasteful — especially in tough economic times. And one popular target has been scientific studies that either sound silly or involve foreign countries or have to do with sex. > > Looking at past examples, however, shows that there seems to be a pattern to how research gets singled out — and what happens after it’s put under the spotlight. > > Take the case of the “shrimp on a treadmill.” Burnett says the senator’s report linked that work to a half-million-dollar research grant. But that money actually went to a lot of different research that he and his colleagues did on this economically important seafood species. > > The treadmills were just a small part of it, a way to measure how shrimp respond to changes in water quality. Burnett says the first treadmill was built by a colleague from scraps and was basically free, and the second was fancier and cost about $1,000. The senator’s report was misleading, says Burnett, “and it suggests that much money was spent on seeing how long a shrimp can run on a treadmill, which was totally out of context.” I think that and many other examples shows how bubbles of information omit a lot of context and reinforce the idea that there is a lot of “useless” science being done. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/many-scientific-studies-are-bullshit-we-already-know/680192/24 "2014-01-31T17:05:48Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Even with a little educated guessing I think that groups like insurance entities in Russia will be able to use that data to make better risk assessments and save money. The point is that regardless that one thinks that some things are so obvious that they should not be investigated, what happens is that studies are not done to benefit the preconceptions of armchair scientists; but are made also to help industry and government to quantify an issue so resources can be used better. Right. The study didn’t just show \*that \*vodka leads to early death…the study \*quantified \*the impact of vodka on life expectancy. Er, death expectancy. So now a life insurance company can figure out precisely \*how much \*to jack up the rates of heavy drinkers, or public health nurses can decide whether it’s more efficacious to focus on vodka or, say, use of chainsaws, when educating the public about health risks. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/many-scientific-studies-are-bullshit-we-already-know/680192/25 "2014-01-31T17:13:32Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > BTW The OP reminded me of another recent disparaging of basic science. > > The case of the Shrimp On A Treadmill. If I was in Congress, I would have been outrageg that they didn’t put flying fish on that treadmill. Or a clam with those little eyes glued on riding a seahorse in a bi-plane. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/many-scientific-studies-are-bullshit-we-already-know/680192/26 "2014-01-31T17:15:06Z")
But, will they take off? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/many-scientific-studies-are-bullshit-we-already-know/680192/27 "2014-01-31T17:32:29Z")
One of these studies someday will be: Cutting Taxes Does Not Increase Revenue. Half the people will think this is obvious, the other half will think it is the latest lie from the global conspiracy. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/many-scientific-studies-are-bullshit-we-already-know/680192/28 "2014-01-31T18:11:10Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > Right. The study didn’t just show \*that \*vodka leads to early death…the study \*quantified \*the impact of vodka on life expectancy. Er, death expectancy. So now a life insurance company can figure out precisely \*how much \*to jack up the rates of heavy drinkers, or public health nurses can decide whether it’s more efficacious to focus on vodka or, say, use of chainsaws, when educating the public about health risks. Indeed, and I just noticed that I forgot the link to the real context of the Shrimp story on NPR: > **['Shrimp On A Treadmill' And The Politics Of 'Silly' Science Studies](https://www.npr.org/2011/08/23/139852035/shrimp-on-a-treadmill-the-politics-of-silly-studies)** > > Lawmakers and political groups like to point to government spending that they say is wasteful — especially in tough economic times. And one popular target has been scientific studies that either sound silly or involve foreign countries or have to do... ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/many-scientific-studies-are-bullshit-we-already-know/680192/29 "2014-01-31T18:22:20Z")
> [@Max\_Torque](#): > > “Yet another groundbreaking story, from the pages of the medical journal, **DUH**.” > [/Norm MacDonald] Heaven help me, I want to see that journal. Not just medical, though, I want it to be a general journal of studies proving the bleeding obvious. The only criteria are that the science has to be sound and the subject has to have not been proven previously and the reaction of an ordinary person reading it would be, “of course”. > [@WhyNot](#): > > Right. The study didn’t just show \*that \*vodka leads to early death…the study \*quantified \*the impact of vodka on life expectancy. Er, death expectancy. So now a life insurance company can figure out precisely \*how much \*to jack up the rates of heavy drinkers, or public health nurses can decide whether it’s more efficacious to focus on vodka or, say, use of chainsaws, when educating the public about health risks. Russian health authorities can use it to decide whether the problem is bad enough to justify addressing with tax money. Until a problem is quantified, City Hall can shrug and say it’s not as bad as all that. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/many-scientific-studies-are-bullshit-we-already-know/680192/30 "2014-01-31T18:26:35Z")
As Simon Singh once said (though he may have gotten it from someone else): “Science is the fight against common sense”. Sure, the vast majority of studies looking at what seems to be obvious are probably going to confirm what we naturally think is true, but sometimes we discover that we were wrong, and that’s when things get really interesting. > [@](#): > > No shit. damn, I needed a study to tell me that. Yes, you do. Without a properly designed study, you don’t _know_ it. You just _think_ it. And we think a whole hell of a lot of bullshit, it turns out. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/many-scientific-studies-are-bullshit-we-already-know/680192/31 "2014-01-31T18:26:35Z")
> [@](#): > > …“and it suggests that much money was spent on seeing how long a shrimp can run on a treadmill, which was totally out of context.” … It’s not about how _long_, it’s about how _fast_. If shrimp are being chased by a predator, the important thing is not whether the shrimp can outrun the predator, just whether it can outrun the shrimps next to it. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/many-scientific-studies-are-bullshit-we-already-know/680192/32 "2014-01-31T19:07:41Z")
One could consider the infamous [clinging shower curtain research](http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2001/10/47334). Seemed pretty ridiculous at the time, but all the better motels I have stayed in over the past six or seven years have made use of this research, those curved curtain rods eliminate the problem. Money well spent, I say. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/many-scientific-studies-are-bullshit-we-already-know/680192/33 "2014-01-31T19:41:49Z")
> [@Klaatu](#): > > I have long wondered why a lot of so called scientific, peer reviewed studies are just plain bullshit about human behavior. The latest I just read from google news is that a new study reported that Russian men who drink lots of vodka die earlier than those who don’t. Suppose they did a study and found out Russian men who drink vodka live LONGER? That is why we have to do studies - to confirm what we think we already know, and learn from it if we’re actually wrong, because sometimes what we think we know is actually not true. Also, many studies cover multiple things. The vodka study might have had lots of details about alcoholism that was new to science, but the reporter who wrote what you read about it just focused on the main part - possibly to mock it just like you are. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/many-scientific-studies-are-bullshit-we-already-know/680192/34 "2014-01-31T19:42:54Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > As Simon Singh once said (though he may have gotten it from someone else): “Science is the fight against common sense”. Exactly! I’ll remember that one, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/many-scientific-studies-are-bullshit-we-already-know/680192/35 "2014-01-31T19:46:04Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > One of these studies someday will be: Cutting Taxes Does Not Increase Revenue. Half the people will think this is obvious, the other half will think it is the latest lie from the global conspiracy. Funny, the answer is neither. Cutting taxes can increase revenue sometimes. You just can’t know if it will until you try. If you are high enough on the Laffer Curve, though, you can be pretty sure of it. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/many-scientific-studies-are-bullshit-we-already-know/680192/36 "2014-01-31T19:59:13Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Funny, the answer is neither. > > Cutting taxes can increase revenue sometimes. You just can’t know if it will until you try. If you are high enough on the Laffer Curve, though, you can be pretty sure of it. When you think about it, the cocktail-napkin analysis is not a little paradoxical in context. Laffer was suggesting a way to increase government revenue at a time when the president’s favorite joke was “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.” Somehow, those two things fail to mesh. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/many-scientific-studies-are-bullshit-we-already-know/680192/37 "2014-01-31T20:06:03Z")
> [@Yllaria](#): > > Heaven help me, I want to see that journal. Not just medical, though, I want it to be a general journal of studies proving the bleeding obvious. The only criteria are that the science has to be sound and the subject has to have not been proven previously and the reaction of an ordinary person reading it would be, “of course”. According to [the transcript](http://snltranscripts.jt.org/94/94pupdate.phtml), the photo of the cover listed additional stories: “Exercise Is Good”, “Medicine Can Help”, “Smoking Is Bad”, “Eat Right For Better Health”, and “Cancer Can Cause Death.” Also, “A person who suffers two sharp, powerful blows to the head within a short period of time can suffer brain damage or even die. This according to a new study in the medical journal “DUH.”” ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/many-scientific-studies-are-bullshit-we-already-know/680192/38 "2014-01-31T20:39:28Z")
> [@wheresmymind](#): > > These studies sound spurious because their conclusions have been condensed into a one second sound bite by the popular press. If you’re so smart, please tell me (without looking at the study you mentioned, or conducting your own) how much does drinking vodka decrease ones lifespan? Five years? Ten? Thirty? How much vodka is necessary to shorten one’s life? Is the relationship between vodka consumption and lifespan linear? Exponential? > > Married couples who have lots of sex are happier than ones that don’t. Ok. Is that a cause-and-effect relationship, or simple correlation? How much happier? Can a couple living in grinding poverty who do the nasty 7 times a week expect to be happier than the financially stable couple who only do it 3 times a week? Is the effect dependent on age? Is there a point at which having more sex stops making you happier? > > Washing your hands reduces the amount of germs on your hands. Please tell me, off the top of your head, does the amount of soap you use matter? What is the optimum amount of soap? What about the type of soap? Hot vs. cold water? How long should you wash your hands? Will washing your hands for 30 seconds rid your hands of three times as many germs as washing your hands for 10 seconds? What is the best hand-washing strategy for eliminating bacteria? Viruses? Is there a difference between the two? > > These are the types of questions answered by these studies, but it doesn’t make for a snappy headline. Your beef should be with the popular press for doing such a shitty job reporting on current scientific research. I came here to post this, but you said it so much better. Kudos.🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/many-scientific-studies-are-bullshit-we-already-know/680192/39 "2014-01-31T20:43:17Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Suppose they did a study and found out Russian men who drink vodka live LONGER? And the effect may not be linear. Some studies have found that people who drink a moderate amount of alcohol have a lower chance of premature death than those who don’t drink any alcohol at all. So how much alcohol is OK? Is there a cut-off point? Maybe it’s no problem to drink up to a certain amount. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/many-scientific-studies-are-bullshit-we-already-know/680192/40 "2014-01-31T20:48:05Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > And the effect may not be linear. Some studies have found that people who drink a moderate amount of alcohol have a lower chance of premature death than those who don’t drink any alcohol at all. So how much alcohol is OK? Is there a cut-off point? Maybe it’s no problem to drink up to a certain amount. Right, exactly. It _seems_ like a glass of red wine a day is better for most people than no booze at all. But how about a whole bottle? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/many-scientific-studies-are-bullshit-we-already-know/680192.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/many-scientific-studies-are-bullshit-we-already-know/680192.md?page=3)