Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Science

drm604

(16,230 posts)

5. It strikes me that weaker studies are more likely to have more interesting (though wrong) findings.

Reply to HuckleB (Original post)

Sat Jan 16, 2016, 07:59 AM

Jan 2016

Well done randomized controlled trials are less likely to find things that stray from currently accepted science (simply because currently accepted science is more likely to be correct) and therefore attract less journalistic attention.

Weaker studies are more likely to produce wrong, but more provocative, results, and thus attract more journalistic attention.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Journals give more publicity to �weak science� [View all] HuckleB Jan 2016 OP

I'm guessing that they assume the public will ignore info from scientifically rigorous studies tblue37 Jan 2016 #1

Possibly, but I wonder if there are other drivers. HuckleB Jan 2016 #3

Details are boring. Quick and easy reading sells copy. nt eppur_se_muova Jan 2016 #2

Hype pays the bills in modern society. hunter Jan 2016 #4

It strikes me that weaker studies are more likely to have more interesting (though wrong) findings. drm604 Jan 2016 #5