As I write this blog post, Francis Haugen testifies on Capitol Hill and sheds light on some of Facebook's shady practices. TL;DR- Facebook realizes that its practices are support terrorism.  This led to a public relations blitz from Facebook, including Monika Bickert, who appeared on CNN . Of particular relevance is repeated reference made to an Instagram survey of 40 teens ( here is the documentation I was able to find ). I saw this tweet from Asha Rangappa Reaction about one of those interviews: https://twitter.com/AshaRangappa_/status/1445487820580081674 LOL I had to listen to this twice to make sure I didn’t mishear: This @Facebook exec repeatedly refers to a “survey” of FORTY teen Insta users— as in 4-0 — to support her assertion that the “majority” of teens have a great experience on the platform. For real. Listen to it https://t.co/Ye7ocWcnzG — Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) October 5, 2021 This example packs a lot of punch. It is a good one for the youths because it is ...

This is a fine example of using misleading statistics to try and make an argument. USA Today tweeted out this graphic , related to some data that was collected by some firm. There appear to be a number of method issues with this data, so a number of ways to use this in your class: 1) False Dichotomy:  Survey response options should be mutually exclusive. I think there are two types of muddled dichotomies with this data: a) What is "essential"? When my kids were younger, I had an online subscription for diapers. Those were absolutely essential and I received a discount on my order since it was a subscription. However, according to this survey dichotomy, are they an indulgence since they were a subscription that originated online. b) Many purchases fall into multiple categories. Did the survey creators "double-dip" as to pad each mean and push the data towards it's $18K conclusion? Were participants clear that "drinks out with frien...

Jodi Cohen's story about research ethics violations, and the subsequent pulling of $3.1 million in grant funding , is a terrific case study that shows your students what can happen when research ethics are violated. It is also an excellent example of good, thorough science writing and investigative reporting. Short version of the story: UIC psychiatrist Mani Pavuluri was studying lithium in children. She was doing this on NIHM's dime. And she violated research protocols. The bullet points, copy and pasted out of Cohen's article, are a summary of the biggest ethical shortcomings of the study: So NIHM asked for their money back ($3.1 million) and the university and research are now being investigated by the government. This example also highlights that IRBs are NOT just some rubber stamp for researchers. They are in charge of enforcing federal rules for research. Another interesting fact: UIC tried to block ProPublica from publishing the story. This w...

I love good graphic design and lists. This guide to spotting bad science embraces both. And many of the science of bad science are statistical in nature, or involve sketchy methods. Honestly, this could be easily turned into a  homework assignment for research evaluation. This comes from the Compound Interest ( @compoundchem ), which has all sorts of beautiful visualizations of chemistry topics, if that is your jam. 

Bahahaha. A very funny example of conflict of interest, as this satirical study was sponsored by Red Robin.  Click through to the original content to rea d how the study replaced "I Voted" stickers with " thick Red Robin Gourmet Cheeseburger complete with pickle relish, tomatoes, onions, lettuce, mayonnaise, and their choice of cheese". http://creative.theonion.com/ads/onion-ring/article/study-giving-away-ldquoi-votedrdquo-burger-instead-of-sticker-would-increase-voter-turnout-by-80

This hilarious video is making the rounds on the Interwebz. Kudos to John Oliver and his writing team for so succinctly and hilariously summarizing many different research problems...why replication is important but not rewarded, how research is presented to the public, how researchers over-reach about their own findings, etc.  I Tweeted about this, but am making it cannon by sharing as a blog post. Note: This video has some off-color humor (multiple references to bear fellatio) so it is best suited to college aged students. I will use this in my Online and Honors classes as discussion prompts. Here are some of the prompts I came up with: 1) In your own words, why aren't replications published? How do you think the scientific community could correct this problem?  2) In your own words, explain just ONE of how a RESEARCHER can manipulate their own data and/or research findings. It should be one of the methods of manipulation described in the video. Also, don't just na...

Alright. This teaching idea is pretty involved. It is bigger than any one instructor and requires interdepartmental effort as well as support from The Powers that Be at your university. The U.S. Holocaust Museum hosts a number of  traveling exhibits . One in particular, " Deadly Medicine: Creating the Master Race ", provides a great opportunity for the discussions of research ethics, the protection and treatment of human research subjects, and how science can be used to justify really horrible things. I am extraordinarily fortunate that Gannon University's Department of History (with assistance from our Honors program as well as College of the Humanities, Education, and Social Sciences) has worked hard to get this exhibit to our institution during the Fall 2015 semester. It is housed in our library through the end of October. How I used it in my class: My Honors Psychological Statistics class visited the exhibit prior to a discussion day about research ethics. In...

NPR did a series of stories exposing research that the U.S. government conducted during WWII. This research exposed American soldiers to mustard gas for research purposes. In some instances, the government targeted soldiers of color, believing that they had tougher/different skin that would make them more resistant to this form of chemical warfare. Here is the  whole series of stories  (from the  original research, exposed via Freedom of Information Act , to  NPR working to find the effected veterans ). None of the soldiers ever received any special dispensation or medical care due to their involvement. Participants were not given the choice to discontinue participation without prejudice, as recalled below by one of the surviving veterans: "We weren't told what it was," says Charlie Cavell, who was 19 when he volunteered for the program in exchange for two weeks' vacation. "Until we actually got into the process of being in that room and realized, wait a m...