The first thing that struck me was
better “sampling”.
Data?
I would lose the word “better” entirely because it implies a value judgement that you may or may not have the “authority” to make. Better “data” or “methodology” implies you know about the specifics of the content of the experiment rather than merely it’s design. If you can get the details of whether
it was a larger sample size, or a double-blind, or a dedicated experiment vs. a meta-analysis, then you can prove your point with facts rather than the readers reliance on your authority. If you can’t get those details then I would suggest something like, “more robust experimental design.”
You don’t mean better methods/criteria/parameters etc, you mean a larger cohort size.
Just because a studied cohort is bigger, doesn’t by itself show anything. It needs the statistics to SHOW that it is a more accurate interpretation of what actually happened.
If you’re going to correlate that study to the effects on the human brain, you’ll have to find something which shows that the brains of Rhesus monkeys are similar to human brains with regard to neurotransmitters.
And what’s wrong with “What Pot does to Monkey Brains” as a title?
cri·te·ri·on: ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kr-tîr-n)
n. pl. cri·te·ri·a (-tîr-) or cri·te·ri·ons
A standard, rule, or test on which a judgment or decision can be based. See Synonyms at *standard*.
Criteria:
Criterion \Crite"rion\ (kr?-t?"r?-?n), n.; pl. Criteria (-?), sometimes Criterions (-?nz). [Gr. ??? a means for judging, fr. ??? decider, judge, fr. ??? to separate. See Certain.] A standard of judging; any approved or established rule or test, by which facts, principles opinions, and conduct are tried in forming a correct judgment respecting them.
Despite efforts by various and sundry the dictionary (e.g. <dictionary.com>) is still the generally accepted standard for the meaning of words!
Why be difficult when with just a little effort
you can be absolutely impossible!