Life expectancy: this study is worse than useless – it’s grossly misleading (“CNN”). It is purports to show deficiency of US healthcare system, while, in reality:
– People in the US drive much more than in the ‘top’ countries, so there are many more traffic fatalities.
– Firearms make suicides easier, so there are more of them, also more murders per capita.
– Opoids epidemic: look at the numbers, so many young people dying.
Bias in drug efficiency research: what do these results imply for anthropogenic global warming science?
Thanks for posting these links, I look forward to them every week.
Thomas Müller Grafsays:
study is worse than useless – it’s grossly misleading (“CNNâ€)
Do you think CNN is misleading a lot? Do you have some proof? What would be their motivation?
in reality
The top 10 causes of depth are listed here, and the reasons you listed (traffic, suicides, opioids) are not top reasons. Health is. So… But it’s hard to say what is the most effective way to reduce death rate. And for a small subset of suicides, it arguably doesn’t make sense to do so.
anthropogenic global warming science
For drug research, the motivation to selectively publish is clear, but it’s less clear for topics global warming. There is incentive for both pro and contra.
For drug research, the motivation to selectively publish is clear, but it’s less clear for (…)
There is the notion of skin in the game that’s always relevant.
What is the interest of the researchers? Generally it is to please their peers and sponsors. When the research is funded by the state throught peer reviews, the peers and the sponsors are often more or less the same.
This means that you will see relatively little research that is likely to upset a community. And you are disproportionally likely to see research that will make people from that community feel good.
However, science is still the best we have. If you are interested in truth and knowledge, there is no other way than to put some trust in the business of science. You should, however, always be critical.
Thomas Müller Grafsays:
Yes, motivations are more complex than one would think. A friend of mine, a professor in Florida whose research area includes climate change, once told me that climate change research gets funding more easily if Republicans are in power, as for Democrats its already clear that climate change is anthropogenic, so no more such research about that is needed in their view.
This study suggests that Democrats do not always spend more on R&D, contrary to what is often expected by the public and the media. While it may superficially seem that Republicans are less supportive of investing in R&D compared to Democrats, a closer scrutiny of the data suggests otherwise (…) Although party affiliation may tell us which party is spending more on certain areas of science policy, there is no consistent party pattern in total research and development funding.
Thomas Müller Grafsays:
I am skeptical that Republicans will provide more generously to climate-change researchers than Democrats.
That’s what I heard, about 8 years ago. I guess it changed with Trump.
A lot of research is just related to climate change, but mainly about more short-term effects (effects of fertilizers and so on).
Life expectancy: this study is worse than useless – it’s grossly misleading (“CNN”). It is purports to show deficiency of US healthcare system, while, in reality:
– People in the US drive much more than in the ‘top’ countries, so there are many more traffic fatalities.
– Firearms make suicides easier, so there are more of them, also more murders per capita.
– Opoids epidemic: look at the numbers, so many young people dying.
Bias in drug efficiency research: what do these results imply for anthropogenic global warming science?
Thanks for posting these links, I look forward to them every week.
Do you think CNN is misleading a lot? Do you have some proof? What would be their motivation?
The top 10 causes of depth are listed here, and the reasons you listed (traffic, suicides, opioids) are not top reasons. Health is. So… But it’s hard to say what is the most effective way to reduce death rate. And for a small subset of suicides, it arguably doesn’t make sense to do so.
For drug research, the motivation to selectively publish is clear, but it’s less clear for topics global warming. There is incentive for both pro and contra.
For drug research, the motivation to selectively publish is clear, but it’s less clear for (…)
There is the notion of skin in the game that’s always relevant.
What is the interest of the researchers? Generally it is to please their peers and sponsors. When the research is funded by the state throught peer reviews, the peers and the sponsors are often more or less the same.
This means that you will see relatively little research that is likely to upset a community. And you are disproportionally likely to see research that will make people from that community feel good.
However, science is still the best we have. If you are interested in truth and knowledge, there is no other way than to put some trust in the business of science. You should, however, always be critical.
Yes, motivations are more complex than one would think. A friend of mine, a professor in Florida whose research area includes climate change, once told me that climate change research gets funding more easily if Republicans are in power, as for Democrats its already clear that climate change is anthropogenic, so no more such research about that is needed in their view.
I am not American, but I am skeptical that Republicans will provide more generously to climate-change researchers than Democrats.
However, it is also incorrect to think that Republicans spend less on science:
That’s what I heard, about 8 years ago. I guess it changed with Trump.
A lot of research is just related to climate change, but mainly about more short-term effects (effects of fertilizers and so on).