Scientifically, should sensitive research issues have to pass a more rigorous standard?

[Mijin]

I guess I have to repeat what I said in the other thread:

Finding the genes responsible for particular traits is scientifically useful. Trying to find average differences between (poorly-defined) groups, that overlap a great deal, is almost entirely useless.
It’s of interest to some people because they wish to support particular biases, and treat everyone of group X as being inferior in some way to group Y.

So for that reason, if I were someone funding research studies I’d need a good reason why we’re studying such differences, even if it’s just “white people have larger fingernails [on average]”.
If there is such a reason, then fine, and the acceptable p value is the same as any other study.

[usedtobe]

This argument comes down to “some topics are more sensitive than other topics”.
If you want to describe the “sensitivity” as “level of certainty”, knock yourself out.
It is not going to change the sensitivity of any topic.

And, given the horseshit “Scientists have found that fat people have more scalp hair” crap on the “news” (a study of 50 people is NOT conclusive), I can’t get real excited about this crap.

[Blaster_Master]

@Velocity

Now, is this scientifically logical, though? The math is the same and the equations and formulas are the same. The main difference is that one is a reasonably unoffensive issue whereas the other issue really rankles people. But from a scientific perspective, shouldn’t facts be neutral - in the sense that whether something is politically offensive or not should not change the methodology or the standards demanded?

IMO, no. This fundamentally defeats the whole objectivity part of science, particularly the harder sciences. If a study has produced a result with whatever the typical standard is in their field and has passed peer review, it is worthy of publishing in an appropriate journal regardless of whether it’s something like “Do people of primarily European descent typically have less melanin than people with primarily African descent?” vs the same study, but on intelligence. The consequences of the research is one that should be left up to society. Was that standard and the results significant enough to act on, or no? If so, what action should we take?

Really, it seems to me the problem is, as others mentioned, with peer review and with the idea of “publish or perish”. Academics are forced to publish, so we get a higher quantity, with poor peer review processes, we get a lower signal to noise ratio on the results. Hell, it’s not uncommon that I’ll hear about two contradicting studies being released around the same time, particularly when they’re studying controversial issues, and it’s possible that both have issues with their methodologies, rigor, data, or reproduceability. So we have to rely on more reputable journals, but even they get things wrong from time to time.

I’d really much rather see us reevaluate the process for publishing, to reinforce an idea of quality over quantity, and then if we raise the standards across the board, it also raises them for controversial issues as well.

[dasmoocher]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

You bet I’m going to hold the latest theory about why White People Are the Bestest up to more skepticism than I’ll hold the latest theory about gravity waves.

• To nearly the extent, you freakin’ nitpicker.

[my italics]

Did you mean to say gravitational waves.

[dasmoocher]

I recently heard the author of this piece speak and hold a discussion panel:
How journals like Nature, Cell and Science are damaging science

The author is an advocate for legitimate open-access publishing.

In extreme cases, the lure of the luxury journal can encourage the cutting of corners, and contribute to the escalating number of papers that are retracted as flawed or fraudulent. Science alone has recently retracted high-profile papers reporting cloned human embryos, links between littering and violence, and the genetic profiles of centenarians. Perhaps worse, it has not retracted claims that a microbe is able to use arsenic in its DNA instead of phosphorus, despite overwhelming scientific criticism.

There is a better way, through the new breed of open-access journals that are free for anybody to read, and have no expensive subscriptions to promote. Born on the web, they can accept all papers that meet quality standards, with no artificial caps. Many are edited by working scientists, who can assess the worth of papers without regard for citations. As I know from my editorship of eLife, an open access journal funded by the Wellcome Trust, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the Max Planck Society, they are publishing world-class science every week.

It was kinda funny because people kept on referring to CNS. As a biology guy, my first thought was central nervous system? But, then I got it–apparently, it’s a fairly common acronym for Cell, Nature, and Science when talking about journals and publishing.