FX uses the scientific method better then JAMA?
U27111 at uicvm.uic.edu
U27111 at uicvm.uic.edu
Sat Dec 9 23:22:14 EST 1995
ckrepel at post.its.mcw.edu (Candace Krepel) wrote on 8 Dec 1995
>As I am sure you know, the scientific method requires that the
>investigator control for all factors other than the one being
And I'm sure you know just how much garbage does get published
under the guise that the scientific method was followed!
I've worked in labs where people don't bother running controls...
or better yet, made up their control reagents separate from test
reagents (ie., they found the controls worked better if they made
them with double distilled water; but made up the test reagents in
just plain in house DI water).
Or do cell counts using a dirty hemacytometer... but as long as it
was consistently dirty... that was ok.
Or they represent data obtained from a certain cell line as being
valid... completely ignoring that fact that this particular cell
line use to be a suspension culture... but that some how
miraculously spontaneously mutated into a monolayer culture while
they were working with it [genetic drift... you know :-) ]
And all this stuff gets published... leaving out these little
details of course.
You know, things like that.
>I don't believe the JAMA study (even without reading it, because
>of the aforementioned personal experience), but if FX, or anyone
>else, wishes to refute the findings of the author(s) of the JAMA
>article, their science needs to be much more rigorous than that
>reported by the poster.
I don't know... in total and complete honesty... I found the FX
experiment more rigorous then those performed by some I've worked
with in past labs (who've gotten published and received monies).
But I will agree with you that it wasn't as rigorous or complete as
truly using the scientific method would be. But quit frankly, very
few in our business actually use it properly... most people abuse
And as for using it to 'refute' a JAMA publication... I think by
the fact most parents who raise their own children would disagree
with this JAMA's study alone should question exactly what
scientific method did these people use in the first place to report
such a thing?
Or is it because it was reported in JAMA and thus it shouldn't be
questioned at all... and thus 'much more' would be need to refute
Personally, I think this just goes to show JAMA is no better or
worst then every other medical journal out there which reports
garbage... just because they are JAMA doesn't mean they are any
better at reporting scientific truths.
More information about the Bioforum