Would nutritional epidemiology be better (e.g. produce stronger, more actionable, and/pr less weak/misleading studies) if we treated it MORE or LESS seriously as a scientific field?
-
Show this thread
-
Some arguments to consider: -Treating it less seriously reduces distribution of weak and misleading studies. -However, treating it less seriously is a self-fulfilling prophecy, with low quality standards and inability to attract strong methods people.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
-The problems with nutr epi are fundamental, and difficult / impossible to overcome, and therefore taking it seriously is a mistake. -Taking it seriously will improve communication of uncertainty and difficulty of solving the very difficult problems.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
-Treating it less seriously would help free it from the influence of media and popular attention, allowing researchers to focus more on robust analysis rather than catchy headlines. -Treating it more seriously incentivizes more helpful critique/reform.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Noah Haber Retweeted Linda Nab 📏
Question inspired by this thread from
@lindanab1 https://twitter.com/lindanab1/status/1153045330591719424 …. So far no one is taking the "less" argument, but lots with the equivalent of "it depends." Shoulda seen that one coming.Noah Haber added,
Linda Nab 📏 @lindanab1After my undergrad in maths I switched fields to nutritional epi. I was (perhaps naively) intrigued by the ‘power of food’, ie how eating healthy can prevent diseases. I agree that we shouldn’t try to answer if eggs are healthy based on obs data, but isn’t there a lot more? 1/5 https://twitter.com/f2harrell/status/1152661452626571264 …Show this thread1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
Hey people who disagree with the premise, serious question: what do you disagree with, and why? I genuinely want to hear some arguments here.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread
I reckon the less serious appraisal is mostly a product of the media cycle - most scientists already treat nutritional epi with a healthy dose of skepticism Maybe more about communication than science per se?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.