TL;DR: One way to avoid government regulation is by simply refusing to share data that may lead to government regulation (and safer trains). I'm looking at you, railroads. _____________________________________________________________________________ Not every example I post syncs directly to the typical Psychological Statistics curriculum. I also post about statistical literacy. Like why data matters and counts. And how very, very simple data could help illuminate and solve real-world problems, but only if we can access that data. I get good and mad at organizations that avoid responsibility by manipulating and/or withholding data.  See: Organizations that  share data but in a functionally inaccessible way. Also, I created a spreadsheet (of course I did) containing several examples of times when large organizations goofed around with data so they wouldn't get sued. It looks like I should add rail roads to this list. Aside: I grew up not 10 miles from the world-famous Horsesho...

A few weeks ago, I posted about how you can share data in such a terrible way that one is not breaking the law, but the data is completely unusable. This makes me think of all the times I am irked when someone states a problem but doesn't offer a solution to the problem. Instead, they just talk about what is wrong and not how it could be. So, as a counter piece, let's cheer on organizations that ARE sharing data in a way that is readily accessible. You could use this in class as a palate cleanser if you teach your students about data obfuscation. You could also use it as a way of helping your students understand how data really is everywhere. Or even challenge them to brainstorm an app that uses readily accessible data in a new way to help folks.  Pro-Publica This website lets you check how often salmonella is found at different chicken processing plants. All you need to do is enter the p-number, company, or location listed on your package of chicken: https://projects.propubli...

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...