A new paper on industry-funded food research finds it gets favorable results way more than non-industry funded. This is not surprising. Industry is in the business of selling food. But I haven't ranted in a while so what the hell. 1/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/food-industry-backed-research-gives-results-funders-want-new-analysis-shows/ …
-
Show this thread
-
First, let's address the "I don't look at the funding, I look at the science" objection. There is so much you can't detect from reading the paper. If motivated reasoning and p-hacking were easy to spot, we wouldn't have this replication crisis.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
And does the "look at the science" crowd look at things like how the data is weighted and which stats algorithms and all those other things that can make the difference between results and no results? Sometimes, sure, but often not.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
And then there's the "public funding is drying up so industry funding is necessary" objection. Yes! It is. And I don't oppose industry partnerships across the board. But in the world of nutrition most of those partnerships result in research that does nobody any good.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread
To be fair, I don't know if there ever was that much funding for investigating the association between, say, walnuts and cognitive decline. The public tends to fund things that are not, uh, wildly implausible
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.