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...

This example from Retraction Watch illustrates how NOT to do research. It is a study that was accepted and retracted from Frontiers in Public Health. It purported to find a link between childhood vaccination and a variety of childhood illnesses. This would be a good case study for Research Methods. In particular, this example illustrates: 1) Retraction of scientific studies 2) The problems with self-report surveys 3) Sampling and trying to generalized from biased samples 4) What constitutes a small sample size depending on the research you are conducting 5) Conflict of interest This study, since retracted, studied unvaccinated, partially vaccinated, and fully vaccinated children. And the study found " Vaccinated children were significantly less likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with chickenpox and pertussis, but significantly more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia, otitis media, allergies and NDDs (defined as Autism Spectrum Disorder, Attenti...

This  link  is worth it for these pictures alone: I know, right? Perfect for teaching research methods and explaining the positivity bias in publication. These figures also sum up the reasoning behind the new journal described in this article. New Negatives in Plant Science was founded in order to combat the file drawer problem. It publishes non-significant research. It is open access. It publishes commentaries. It even plans special issues for specific controversial topics within Plant Science. Which absolutely, positively are NOT my jam. However, the creators of this journal hope that it will serve as a model for other fields. Given the recent flare up in the Replication Crisis (now Replication War?), this new journal provides a model for on-going, peer reviewed, replication and debate. I think this journal (or the idea behind this journal) could be used in a research methods class as a discussion piece. Specifically, how else could we reduce the file dra...