On any given day the news will usually have one or two reporting’s about the newest medical or behavioral findings. Even though the news may only report a few findings, in retrospect there is quite a bit of research going on, all of the time; this can lead to often contradictory results. In order to review research critically, John M. Grohol Psy.D., accumulated a list of ways to dissect information given to the public regarding medical or behavioral studies (Grohol). They are as follows: ϖ Cost/Length of Study
According to Grohol, “When a news story mentions the cost of a study in the millions of dollars, or that a study lasted for more than a year, watch out” (Grohol). The high dollar amount, in my opinion, is probably more of a boast. Or …show more content…
If a sample is not random, it leaves room for biased studies; the same goes for studies that advertise for people with “specific characteristics” (Grohol). Grohol states that, “The smaller the sample size studied, the less generalizable the results of the study. While one or two hundred people is a lot in the behavioral and social sciences, it is virtually nothing for a drug study” (Grohol). So, generally speaking, if a study is covering a behavior that might “affect people all over the world”, a study that only uses 200 or so people, from only one geographic region, will likely not give appropriate results …show more content…
It didn’t cover the approval process, but reports of conflictions or deaths regarding certain drugs. I apologize that I cannot remember the title of the film, however, it was shown by Professor Vishnu-Mack in her Drugs and Behavior course. I digress, the FDA employees were extremely overwhelmed the entire department was understaffed. The employees were not able to address reports until months after it happened, or were missing reports all together. My point being, the FDA in more than one aspect, isn’t necessarily promoting “positive and honest research”, unless it’s to boost profit.
It’s wise to be wary of ego motives in terms of research results. Grohal states that, “Researchers are humans and thrive on the attention and idea that what they have discovered will be written down in history books for future years. It can, unfortunately, influence not only their results, but also the way in which they frame their findings” (Grohol). A researcher may display their findings in just the way they want news to report it; typically the media will just repeat the claim made by the researcher (Grohol). All of this can be really confusing to people who aren’t aware of how the inner workings,
According to Grohol, “When a news story mentions the cost of a study in the millions of dollars, or that a study lasted for more than a year, watch out” (Grohol). The high dollar amount, in my opinion, is probably more of a boast. Or …show more content…
If a sample is not random, it leaves room for biased studies; the same goes for studies that advertise for people with “specific characteristics” (Grohol). Grohol states that, “The smaller the sample size studied, the less generalizable the results of the study. While one or two hundred people is a lot in the behavioral and social sciences, it is virtually nothing for a drug study” (Grohol). So, generally speaking, if a study is covering a behavior that might “affect people all over the world”, a study that only uses 200 or so people, from only one geographic region, will likely not give appropriate results …show more content…
It didn’t cover the approval process, but reports of conflictions or deaths regarding certain drugs. I apologize that I cannot remember the title of the film, however, it was shown by Professor Vishnu-Mack in her Drugs and Behavior course. I digress, the FDA employees were extremely overwhelmed the entire department was understaffed. The employees were not able to address reports until months after it happened, or were missing reports all together. My point being, the FDA in more than one aspect, isn’t necessarily promoting “positive and honest research”, unless it’s to boost profit.
It’s wise to be wary of ego motives in terms of research results. Grohal states that, “Researchers are humans and thrive on the attention and idea that what they have discovered will be written down in history books for future years. It can, unfortunately, influence not only their results, but also the way in which they frame their findings” (Grohol). A researcher may display their findings in just the way they want news to report it; typically the media will just repeat the claim made by the researcher (Grohol). All of this can be really confusing to people who aren’t aware of how the inner workings,