What perfect timing. Today’s Wall Street Journal ran an article about John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist who says most published research findings are wrong. He published an essay, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” in 2005.
The Associated Press fact-checked President George W. Bush’s speech on the war in Iraq last night.
Well, not really. But I made you look, didn’t I?
Maybe you missed the headlines a couple of weeks ago about research that claims to show that girls like pink, but they caught my eye. It must have been all the pretty pink headlines and flowery language [girly sigh]. Maybe I’m making a magenta mountain out of a muted-pink molehill, but let’s just say this were a study on, say, the war in Iraq. I believe this little molehill indicates a much larger problem in journalism that goes like this:
Let’s start with the study.
Researchers from Newcastle University in the United Kingdom published the results of a color-preference study on 208 college-age (20-26) volunteers in the Aug. 21, 2007, issue of Current Biology. The article was announced in a press release issued by Cell Press, which publishes Current Biology and several other scientific journals. Current Biology is a peer-reviewed journal, which means that materials submitted for publication are reviewed or “refereed” by a panel of experts in the same field to determine if they meet the standards of their scientific discipline.
Current Biology has 1,709 subscribers, and it’s distributed at about 30 conferences a year. At $179 a year, I doubt your average news consumer would subscribe just to read this article. I doubt they would even pay the $30 I did to download and read the 1,297-word article (a couple of pages) and its supplemental data. Apparently none of the media outlets that published the press release would either, although they really should have.
Or maybe it should be freely available, as Bad Science blogger, Dr. Ben Goldacre (who has a few things to say about the article), points out:
Unless you have an Athens login, you are not allowed to read what the researchers actually said, instead of what the media said they said. Because although they are publicly funded academics at the University of Newcastle, and although this work has been publicised in every major mainstream media outlet in Britain and the US, and although the journal is edited by academics you fund, and paid for by subscriptions from university libraries … the actual academic article is behind a paywall, with a payment model geared towards institutions, rather than interested individuals.
Bad luck you. I guess you have to rely on journalists.
According to the supplemental data, researchers tested three groups:
Why the tests weren’t exactly the same in each setting, researchers didn’t say, and nobody asked. When were the tests done? 2007? 2006? 2005? Researchers didn’t say, and nobody asked.
The first group also completed the Bem Sex Role Inventory, which scores feminity and masculinity based on subjects rating themselves from 1 to 7 on a list of adjectives and phrases, such as self-reliant, yielding, dominant and soft-spoken. Why? Researchers didn’t say, although they found a “significant” correlation between feminity scores (of 46 females) and the preference test. Why this group and not the others? Researchers didn’t say. Nobody asked.
Cell’s press release said, quoting researcher Anya Hurlbert:
The universal favorite color for all people appears to be blue.
“On top of that, females have a preference for the red end of the red-green axis, and this shifts their color preference slightly away from blue towards red, which tends to make pinks and lilacs the most preferred colors in comparison with others.”
Actually, Hurlbert wrote in the Current Biology article:
On average, all subjects give positive weight to the S-(L+M) contrast component (“bluish” contrasts), with British females weighting it significantly higher than British males. (Emphasis added.)
That means 92 women preferred blue even more than 79 men. Do we need a new headline?
Girls like blue even more than boys do!
The article also said, “On average, all males give large negative weight to the L-M [red-green] axis, whereas all females weight it slightly positively.” (Emphasis added.) New headline?
Boys hate red; girls think it’s OK
To rule out cultural influences on color preference, researchers also tested 18 Chinese women and 19 Chinese men. Researchers thought they would get a higher preference for red from the Chinese participants because, they said, red signifies “good luck” in Chinese culture. (I don’t know. Isn’t that like saying the Irish like green?) Results were similar, thus proving to researchers that color preference had nothing to do with culture and everything to do with biology.
Which brings us to this gem:
We speculate that this [girls’ preference for pink] sex difference arose from sex-specific functional specializations in the evolutionary division of labour. The hunter-gatherer theory proposes that female brains should be specialized for gathering-related tasks and is supported by studies of visual spatial abilities.
“Gatherer” females apparently had to identify red fruit among all the green leaves and be highly aware of changes in skin color because of their role as “empathizers.” Sooooo … it’s a scientific fact that a small group of 20-something 21st century women “prefer” reddish hues over men who dislike it because of evolution. Remember, cultural influences were removed as a factor because the Chinese participants didn’t like red any more than the others, even though, according to researchers, they should have.
All-righty.
Here‘s what one blogger had to say about the scientific aspects of the article. Here’s what the Bad Science blogger/doctor said about it. (Red Jenny tipped me off to Bad Science.)
What’s the point of the research, and how will results be used? Researchers didn’t say, except that they plan to study color preference in infants, and perhaps they need funding for that. Except that research apparently has already been done, according to a May 8, 2005, article by BBC News. Even so, nobody asked.
Who’s funding this research and why? Researchers didn’t say, and nobody asked.
However, Unilever was acknowledged for supporting co-researcher Yazhu Ling with a studentship in a 2002 article in Perception and a 2004 article in the Journal of Vision. Unilever was also listed under “support” for a presentation on color perceptionby Hurlbert and Ling at the 29 European Conference on Visual Perception in St. Petersburg, Russia, on Aug. 21, 2006.
While studentships are usually rare because of limited funding, Unilever’s studentship funding seems to be plentiful, offered at Cambridge University, the University of Manchester, the University of Nottingham, the Imperial College London, the University College London, and University of Newcastle upon Tyne, to name a few. Unilever even established its own “world-leading research group” by investing £13M (about $26 million) in the Unilever Centre for Molecular for Science Informatics at Cambridge University, opening a new building in 2000.
Unilever provides financial support for research through its Port Sunlight office in Liverpool, which boasts more than “700 scientists and engineers from various backgrounds and nationalities working to create innovative products for consumers around the world. The global brands our teams contribute to include Dove, Sunsilk, Lynx/Axe, Cif, Persil/Omo and Domestos.” This work, the Web site continues, results in more than 100 patent filings and about 140 peer-reviewed papers and conference presentations. Oh, and by the way, Unilever also created “The Gamekillers,” a television series set to debut on MTV on Sept. 21, to sell Axe antiperspirant, according to an article in the Sept. 13, 2007, Wall Street Journal.
How to sell products to consumers?
“Psychologists, social scientists, and experts in cognitive neuroscience form another important team — Consumer Science Insight — whose role is to investigate how a consumer’s ‘need’ or ‘desire’ translates into a product.”
Let’s check out the headlines. This one’s from Cell’s press release:
Girls prefer pink, or at least a redder shade of blue
Psst! Wouldn’t a “redder shade of blue” be purple?
Other headlines
Study: Why Girls Like Pink (Time.com, Aug. 20, 2007)
Why women love a red, red rose (USATODAY, Aug. 20, 2007)
Girls Really Do Prefer Pink (HealthDay/Yahoo! News, Aug. 20, 2007)
The HealthDay article was picked up by U.S. News & World Report, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and several others. It was even picked up by healthfinder.gov, “Your Guide to Reliable Health Information, sponsored by the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.”
Color biases may be nature, not nurture (Los Angeles Times, Aug. 21, 2007)
At last, science discovers why blue is for boys but girls really do prefer pink (The Times, Aug. 21, 2007)
Why girls ‘really do prefer pink’ (BBC, Aug. 21, 2007)
Girls Prefer Pink, Or At Least A Redder Shade of Blue (Science Daily, Aug. 22, 2007)
I saved the best for last. No, there’s nothing special about the headline. It’s about the same as all the others. The article is the same.
Girls really do prefer pink, study shows (Telegraph, Aug. 21, 2007)
Oh, but this … this takes the cake. The Telegraph’s science editor, Dr. Roger Highfield, made a video version of the article, complete with color-screen changes with a snap of his fingers and a tone of authority and finality. As in, this is the truth, this is scientific fact, these researchers said so, I’m a doctor and I say so, amen.
P.S. The good Dr. Highfield used to work for Unilever.
I have no words. Paul Rieckhoff covers it well.
War is Peace — Freedom is Slavery — Ignorance is Strength
This war is about peace. — President George W. Bush
Sanctioned visits to Iraq by elected officials started in May 2003, and they have been back-to-back ever since. A National Guard general tried to see his troops in late 2003, but a Defense Department policy restricted his travel “for safety reasons” because a limited number of soldiers were available for security details. The general could not visit his troops, but more than 20 delegations visited Iraq in just eight months in 2003. (He finally got to visit his troops by the end of the year.)
Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., started the parade of delegations to Iraq by requesting a visit in early 2003. The Pentagon and the State Department refused. He took off for Iraq anyway in April by joining a convoy of relief workers into Iraq.
This will not be my last time going to Iraq. — Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn.
He was correct. He has been to Iraq 18 times … so far.
Less than a month later, a delegation left for Baghdad on May 23, 2003. Until then, Baghdad had been off limits because it was unsafe, even with armed military escorts. Elected officials insisted on going, however, saying they could not exercise “congressional oversight” from Washington. Three more delegations visited from June to August.
Even though 23 people died in a car bombing of the Baghdad United Nations headquarters on Aug. 19, 2003, an 11-member delegation visited the city on Aug. 25.
By the end of 2003, about a third of the U.S. Congress had visited Iraq.
The Pentagon promoted congressional visits, and House GOP leaders asked every Republican member to visit Iraq as soon as possible. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld believed visits would increase congressional support.
Surprise, surprise. They did.
I was hopeful that progress was being made, but based on the media coverage I had seen, I wasn’t certain. After three days of touring the country, I am now certain that we are making progress. — Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., after his Sept. 13-15, 2003, visit to Iraq (York Daily Record, Sept. 24, 2003).
War is peace.
U.S. House members were part of a delegation in Iraq, Oct. 6-10, 2003. Amory Houghton Jr., R-N.Y., said he was not concerned about his safety.
There’s a waiting list. A lot of people want to go. I think they’ll protect us pretty well. The one thing they don’t want to do is to have a bunch of congressmen slaughtered over there.— Rep. Amory Houghton, R-N.Y. (Star-Gazette)
(Delegation: Reps. Michael N. Castle, R-Del.; Jim Davis, D-Fla.; Wayne Gilchrest, R-Md.; Amory Houghton Jr., R-N.Y.; Ron Kind, D-Wis.; Gregory W. Meeks, D-N.Y.; Fred Upton, R-Mich.; Greg Walden, R-Ore.)
War is peace.
Right on their heels was an all-female delegation during the week of Oct. 20, 2003. Rep. Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio, wondered if there was a more positive story in Iraq than often portrayed in media accounts that emphasize continuing violence and Iraqi and U.S. fatalities.
The positive stuff isn’t coming through. — Rep. Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio (The Columbus Dispatch, Oct. 10, 2003)
They wouldn’t be staying overnight in Iraq, though, for security reasons. (Delegation: Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., Jennifer Dunn, R-Wash., Katherine Harris, R-Fla., Darlene Hooley, D-Ore., Sue Kelly, R-N.Y., Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla.)
War is peace.
Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Fla., visited Nov. 6, 2003, even after a military transport helicopter went down, killing at least 16 troops (FLORIDA TODAY, Nov. 3, 2003). Rep. Bob Beauprez, R-Colo., expected to leave for Iraq in mid-November 2003 even though a trip by another congressional delegation had to be cut short after a bomb blast ripped through United Nations headquarters (Rocky Mountain News, Nov. 15, 2003).
A suicide bomb killed about 50 people and injured scores of others near Baghdad on Feb. 10, 2004, but Gov. Kathleen Blanco, D-La., “presented a positive picture of the occupied country” during her delegation’s visit Feb. 10-11, 2004. Even though extensive security measures highlighted danger at every turn, Blanco said she never felt at risk: “We were well-protected.” Guard units in front and behind their vehicles escorted the delegation, and Apache helicopters flew overhead.
War is peace.
In April 2004, Rumsfeld, who extended the tours of some 20,000 troops, expressed surprise that the death toll was higher than he expected. April was the deadliest month of the war so far with 147 U.S. troops and hundreds of Iraqis killed.
Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah returned with renewed confidence in the importance of the war and that troop morale was high after his visit June 3-6, 2004.
Things were going fine in Iraq. — Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah (The Associated Press, June 7, 2004)
Unconcerned for his safety, Bennett reported a sense of optimism from Iraq. He blamed the slowed Iraq reconstruction on Americans who protested the way building and infrastructure contracts were awarded. (Delegation: Sens. Robert F. Bennett, R-Utah; Bill Frist, R-Tenn; John Ensign, R-Nev.)
War is peace.
Rep. Jo Ann Davis, R-Va., and three others visited Baghdad and Fallujah, June 11-13, 2004. They wore body armor at all times, but Davis said,
… it wasn’t like there was a bomb going off every minute. — Rep. Jo Ann Davis, R-Va., June 2004
War is peace.
Two U.S. troops died on July 14, 2004, when a suicide bomb killed 11 and wounded 40 near the British embassy, insurgents beheaded a hostage and assassinated the governor of Mosul and the director general of Iraq’s Industry Ministry, capping off an explosion of violence in July, as almost 36 U.S. troops died in the first two weeks.
At least seven more delegations visited in August and September, during which time a mortar hit the roof of the U.S. embassy, and two mortar shells exploded about 500 yards from a delegation waiting to board a helicopter, and one U.S. soldier died in Baghdad that day.
Continued violence kept a September delegation from seeing much of Iraq up close, as they spent most of their time in helicopters and Humvees with tight security and flak jackets. Another delegation visited while officials sought freedom for several hostages. Two car bombs wounded American and Iraqi troops west of Baghdad on Sept. 26. Egyptian and British leaders urged the release of abducted workers and a civil engineer kidnapped with two Americans, later beheaded. Insurgents had kidnapped more than 140 foreigners and killed at least 26 of them. A rocket slammed into a busy Baghdad neighborhood, killing at least one and wounding eight. Hours later, another loud blast shook the U.S. embassy, where the delegation was.
A car bomb exploded in front of the Green Zone in October 2004, and another delegation arrived days later. Several more delegations visited from then until the end of the year. In January 2005, insurgents bombed the U.S. embassy, killing two Americans, while a delegation was in Baghdad for the elections. Yet another delegation visited in mid-January 2005.
As 55 people died in Iraq, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said none of the senators dared drive through Baghdad’s streets, even in armored cars during her Feb. 19, 2005, visit. Even so,
Much of Iraq was functioning quite well. — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., Feb. 19, 2005
War is peace.
A delegation visited Baghdad on April 1, 2007. A U.S. soldier and American contractor died, and a rocket wounded five people. Officials acknowledged an increase in violence after 500 Iraqis and six U.S. troops died, while Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., visited Baghdad and insisted security was improving. Four soldiers died when an explosive detonated near their vehicle in Baghdad on April 1. (Delegation: Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; John McCain, R-Ariz.; Reps. Mike Pence, R-Ind.; Rick Renzi, R-Ariz.)
War is peace.
…
Under the table Winston’s feet made convulsive movements. … He was back at the Ministry of Love, with everything forgiven, his soul white as snow. He was in the public dock, confessing everything, implicating everybody. He was walking down the white-tiled corridor, with the feeling of walking in sunlight, and an armed guard at his back. The long-hoped-for bullet was entering his brain. … But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself.
…
This just in — The surge is working.
I got sick during the first week of school two weeks ago. Everyone got sick. Then I started to feel better. Until Saturday. It was worse. I was sick all weekend. Then today. Much, much worse. Fever. Chills. And various nastiness. I swear, I’m ready for hospice. Is it this bad everywhere? Or is it just me?
Questions about visiting Washington, D.C.
If I miraculously rise from my death bed, however, I plan to visit our nation’s capital next month. Yes, when searching for “death bed,” one of the first results was Abraham Lincoln on his, which I have been reading about in Sarah Vowell’s Assassination Vacation. Coincidence? I think not. She also talks a lot about Washington, D.C., which brings me to my questions.
I will attend a conference, and I’m not sure what to expect with weather, what I will need clothing-wise, what in the world I can pack in a suitcase anymore and such. Yes, I’m flying, which means I will probably miss the entire first day of the conference because of delays or cancellations.
Suitcase
What is a person allowed to pack in a checked suitcase anymore? Last time I flew, I only took a carry-on. I didn’t want to mess with having my nail clippers or shampoo swiped, so I took nothing of the sort. I just went to the nearest supermarket when I arrived at my destination. I doubt that will be possible in October. So … can I pack toothpaste, creams, lotions and various sharp objects in my checked luggage? (I had cuticle clippers swiped once, and it made me wonder if they thought I might stalk and tackle someone on the plane, hold them down and … clip their cuticles.)
Wardrobe
This will be the first time I will pretend to be professional in public in, well, a while. I will already be an outsider as a freelancer (not to mention, hiss, a blogger), and I will probably have that first-day-at-Kindergarten look with my new satchel for my laptop. Yes, satchel. I have bags. I want a satchel. So I don’t want to go overboard with a whole new wardrobe or anything. But I don’t want to seem completely out of it.
Shoes
My feet have become Floridated. No, they don’t consume fluoride. They just live in sandals day in and day out because they can, and they don’t do well in normal shoes. I only have shoes and socks for visiting other places, and I always get blisters on my feet whenever that happens. But, tell me, sandals in D.C. in October won’t fly. Will they?
Dress code
The dress code is “business casual.” What does that mean these days? Way back when I worked the mushroom shift (you know, after dark and through to the early-morning hours), there was only a two-hour gap when the day-shift folks would sneer at our ratty jeans and tennis shoes. After that, nobody cared what we looked like. So … what is business casual? Does it include clothing that most people would dry clean? Or just slacks that aren’t denim?
Weather
Is it cold there in October? (Anything 75 degrees or below would cause me to break out the winter stuff here.) Do I need a sweater? Jacket? Ear muffs and mittens?
It’s not like I need any more books in piles around the house, but I’m curious.
What’s your favorite book?
What would you say about it to make me want to read it?
This is just one of my to-read piles. I have them everywhere. I used to be organized and messy, but now I’m just messy. At least I read a lot. I’ll add books here from my to-read pile from time to time.
Beasts of No Nation by Uzodinma Iweala
Kate Remembered by A. Scott Berg
Mystery Train by Greil Marcus
Outsourced by R.J. Hillhouse
Salt Dancers by Ursula Hegi
The Stepford Wives by Ira Levin
Tending Roses by Lisa Wingate
They’re getting warmer, but I’m having a hard time not pulling a Chandler when he’s waiting for Joey to get the punch line and he blurts, “Get there faster!”
The New York Times published an editorial today, “What They Did on Summer Vacation.” (Sound familiar?) They called these visits “congressional junkets” that are really “self-aggrandizing sound bites and video clips.”
Check.
They said that “more than two dozen lawmakers went there during their vacations” and what they got was “meetings with people the administration wanted them to meet.”
Check.
They called these visits “pointless” and “political.”
Check.
Then they asked, “Do these trips have the slightest value?”
(Pause. Sputter. Pause.)
Get there faster!
…
Here is the Washington Post article the editorial mentioned, “Lawmakers Describe ‘Being Slimed in the Green Zone.'” It said three members of Congress (Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., and Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif.) who recently visited Iraq were annoyed about “biography sheets” everyone had about each of them. These sheets included everything from how to pronounce their names to how they voted on the war to quotes they made publicly about the war. Nobody is sure who distributed the sheets.
They were stunned when Iraq’s national security adviser watched children’s cartoons while he met with them.
I bet the cartoon (unlike the meeting) wasn’t a rerun.
…
The Washington Post also published an article on Aug. 28, 2007, “After Tour of Duty in Iraq, Graham Backs ‘Surge.'”
(Sputter. Sputter. Sputter.)
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., wore fatigues and carried a pistol for his tour of duty in Iraq. He was there for two weeks.
I wonder if he saw anything like this while he was there. For two weeks.
Hat tip on video: valleyforge (who has posted the link all over the Internet)
I swiped this from Kristine Lowe, whose blog I frequent. If you’re curious about your own addiction, click through and check it out.
