Reflection Paper
Evaluating Bad Science
Evaluating research and determining good research from bad research is not as simple as one might presume the process to be. There are many factors to delve into in disseminating the data and its supposed findings. As simplistic as it sounds when one compares the old adage of
"you can 't judge a book by its cover", well the same could be true of a supposed landmark medical discovery.
Research is and should be timely, covering a broad spectrum of samples, and even diverse geographical and environmental considerations must be made. I oftentimes will hear of a new medicine or recommended medicine and see the list of possible side effects and wonder what exactly is the lesser of the evils; the affliction being treated or …show more content…
Pay attention to the sample size, the geographical inclusion, are the findings determined by statistics or actuals, etc. These are points brought up by John M. Grohol, Psy.D (Telling the
Good from the Bad: factors in Evaluating Research, 1998).
When it is reported that there are an estimated 1 or 2 new findings every day one can only surmise how many flaws and how much bad science is being overlooked.
With today’s technology these new findings are subject to premature publicity, thus public scrutiny which could cast doubt and rumors and potentially hinder future funding.
Or worse yet, provide the potential of trade secrets being "leaked" and thus ones research being plagiarized or someone getting the notoriety of discovery. Taking into consideration the competition in science, today’s technology and the temptations behind scientific misconduct, I am even more skeptical than I have ever been when evaluating research. Determining is research was good or bad is as complicated as determining if the glass is half full or half empty.
It is one opinion in a million, what are you looking for, what outcome do you want to see.
Evaluating Bad Science
Evaluating research and determining good research from bad research is not as simple as one might presume the process to be. There are many factors to delve into in disseminating the data and its supposed findings. As simplistic as it sounds when one compares the old adage of
"you can 't judge a book by its cover", well the same could be true of a supposed landmark medical discovery.
Research is and should be timely, covering a broad spectrum of samples, and even diverse geographical and environmental considerations must be made. I oftentimes will hear of a new medicine or recommended medicine and see the list of possible side effects and wonder what exactly is the lesser of the evils; the affliction being treated or …show more content…
Pay attention to the sample size, the geographical inclusion, are the findings determined by statistics or actuals, etc. These are points brought up by John M. Grohol, Psy.D (Telling the
Good from the Bad: factors in Evaluating Research, 1998).
When it is reported that there are an estimated 1 or 2 new findings every day one can only surmise how many flaws and how much bad science is being overlooked.
With today’s technology these new findings are subject to premature publicity, thus public scrutiny which could cast doubt and rumors and potentially hinder future funding.
Or worse yet, provide the potential of trade secrets being "leaked" and thus ones research being plagiarized or someone getting the notoriety of discovery. Taking into consideration the competition in science, today’s technology and the temptations behind scientific misconduct, I am even more skeptical than I have ever been when evaluating research. Determining is research was good or bad is as complicated as determining if the glass is half full or half empty.
It is one opinion in a million, what are you looking for, what outcome do you want to see.