This example provides evidence of data funny business beyond psychology, shows why pre-registration is a good thing, AND uses a chi-square. Bonus points for being couched in medicine and prominently featuring randomized controlled trials (RCT). Basically, Kaplan and Irving's  research checked out the results for RCTs funded with grants from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. See below for how they selected their studies: And what did they find? When folks started registering their outcomes, folks started to get fewer "beneficial" results. Which probably REALLY means that some of those previous "beneficial" results were not so beneficial, or the result of some data massaging. See below: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0132382           Another reason to love this example: It is a real life chi-square that is easy to understand! I feel like I don't have enough great chi-square examples in my lif...

This news story demonstrates that research methods are both federally monitored and that best practices can change over time. For a long time, women were not used in large scale pharmaceutical trials. Why did they omit women? They didn't want to accidentally exposed pregnant women to new drugs and because of fears that fluctuations in females hormones over the course of a month would affect research results. Which always makes me think of this scene from Anchorman: But I digress. This has been corrected for and female participants are being included in clinical trials. But many of the animal trials that occur prior to human trials still use mostly male animals. And, again, policies have changed to correct for this. This NPR story details the whole history of this sex bias in research. Part of why this bias has been so detrimental to women is because women report more side effects to drugs than do men. So, by catching such gender differences earlier with animal models, the...