http://io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800 This story demonstrates how easy it is to do crap science, get it published in a pay-to-play journal, and market your research (to a global audience). Within this story, there are some good examples of Type I error, p -hacking, sensationalist science reporting, and, frankly, our obsession with weight and fitness and easy fixes—also, chocolate. Here is the original story, as told to io9.com by the perpetrator of this very conscientious fraud, John Bohannon . Bohannon ran this con to expose just how open to corruption and manipulation the whole research publication process can be ( BioMed Central scandal , for another example), especially when it just the kind of research that is bound to get a lot of media attention ( LaCour scandal , for another example). Bohannon set out to "demonstrate" that dark chocolate can contribute to weight loss. He ran an actual study ( n = 26). He went on a ...

io9.com Das and Biller, reporting for io9.com , shared several good examples of bad graphs. The graphs are bad for a variety of reasons. I have highlighted a few below. Non-traditional display of data that create the illusion that the opposite of the truth is true: Note the y-axis is flipped (0 at the top...huh?), so murders have actually INCREASED since "Stand Your Ground".  Cherry picking data: Confusing data presentation: I think that this could be fun to use in class as a discussion piece to pick apart bad graphs, so that your students 1) think critically about all graphs and figures they see and 2) learn how to make truthful graphs. Another fun way to use this in class would be to present these graphs to your students and then ask them to create APA style manual compliant graphs of the same data.

This story describes a 1966 journal article that argues that signing an informed consent isn't the same as truly giving informed consent. I think this is a good example for the ethics section of a research methods class as it demonstrates some deeply unethical situations in which participants weren't able to give informed consent (prisoners, non-English speakers, etc.). Indeed, the context within which the informed consent is provided is very important. It also provides a historical context regarding the creation of Institutional Review Boards. The original 1966 article is here .