Category: Open Science

This is how things get better…

This is a time of especially intense self-examination in science, a time when the “replication crisis” is rapidly changing our ideas of how to conduct quality research.  As our best practices have changed, we look at prior research in a new and often quite critical light.  Certainly, when established results don’t replicate or are called out for what we now know are problematic research practices, this can feel intensely critical and dispiriting for the original authors.

When criticism comes our way, it never feels great.  But we have to make a decision of where to go from there: if we will simply be defensive and dismissive, or if we will find ways to grapple with criticism and find ways to respond.

On that note, here is short essay that can serve as a model for how to respond to criticism. It comes from Daniel Lakens, who has emerged as real leader in the efforts to improve science, and it tells how he came into this role by grappling seriously with intense criticism of one of his most cited papers.  It’s an incredible story, and it shows the way forward out of the replication crisis: by working hard to do even better.

Check out the post here: http://daniellakens.blogspot.com/2016/09/why-scientific-criticism-sometimes.html

 

Now streaming from YouTube: ITNS videos

There are 38 videos that come with ITNS. They aim to explain ideas and, in many cases, to walk through using ESCI to see cool things, or analyse data and make nice data pictures. Pictures with CIs, of course.

I’ve uploaded those videos to YouTube, for easy streaming. At YouTube, search for ‘ITNS book’. The first digit in the name is the chapter number. The text below the vid on YouTube summarizes the content.

If instead you search for ‘Geoff Cumming’ you get in addition a dozen or so earlier videos, including the original dance of the p values. (Another way to find that is to Google ‘dance of the p values’.)

Back to the ITNS vids. Early feedback from students has been positive. “Not too fast, not too slow.” (Goldilocks?) “Great that they are pretty short.” (I’m believing that’s a positive remark.)

Enjoy.

 

Good science is an act of courage…

Here is an interview with Peter Wilmshurst, cardiologist, researcher, and courageous advocate for doing science better.  He discusses some of the enormous pressures that can be brought to bear to shape the outcomes of industry research, and how, as a simple matter of course, he felt compelled to resist.

 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/spiegel-interview-with-whistleblower-doctor-peter-wilmshurst-a-1052159.html

 

NIH and the push for better science

Science is vital and it is also big business.  In the U.S., one of the biggest founders of scientific research is the National Institute of Health (NIH).  As the NIH writes the checks, you can imagine that it finds the reproducibility crisis to be very troubling.  To help fix these problems, the NIH has launched a new initiative to increase the rigor and reproducibility of the research it funds.   Readers of ITNS will find many of the NIH recommendations familiar; they include data sharing, full disclosure of exclusions, better planning for sample sizes, and more.  You can check out the initiative here, including some nice videos the NIH made to explain some important research practices:

https://www.nih.gov/research-training/rigor-reproducibility/publications

 

Good research in the service of more effective activism

Research can be vitally important, helping shape how we see the world and the policies we enact.  Here is an example of an applied research lab aiming to use applied research to figure out the most effective ways to lobby for animal rights.  You don’t have to agree with their politics to appreciate what an incisive and thoughtful lab this is.  Click through the blog to read posts on the perils of significance testing, the importance of adequate sample sizes, and excellent research reports that are a model of Open Science practices.

 

http://www.humaneleaguelabs.org/blog/

 

Get involved: registered replication project on “professor priming”

Registered replication reports are a new initiative sponsored by the APS where labs around the world collaborate to conduct a large-scale, precise replication of an important finding in psychology.  The really cool thing about these projects is that they are perfect for undergraduate researchers.  A lead lab develops the protocol and training materials that will ensure each lab replicates the desired protocol precisely.  Interested labs apply to take part and commit to collecting a sample of a specific size within a certain time frame.

Here is a call to participate in an RRP that will examine “professor priming” (we’re not going to explain what that is, click the link to find out).  Hurry, the deadline for applying to participate is September 9.

“Professor Priming” Focus of APS Registered Replication Report Project