- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
This is a challenging essay but I think it will reward those who persevere. As the author says, it is about questions, not answers.
Is much of current climate research useless?
Posted on July 6, 2016 | 235 comments
by Kip Hansen
John P. A. Ioannidis dropped another cluster bomb on the medical research world two weeks ago with his latest paper which concludes:
“Overall, not only are most research findings false, but, furthermore, most of the true findings are not useful.”
Continue reading →
Ioannidis [pronounced yo-NEE-dees) ] is not some grumpy gadfly or crusty curmudgeon casting stones at his fellow medical researchers. He speaks from a high bully pulpit at Stanford University School of Medicine where he is a Professor of Medicine and of Health Research and Policy, a Professor of Statistics (Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences) as well as the Director of the Stanford Prevention Research Center. [full bio here] . . . .
Ioannidis says “’Useful clinical research’ means that it can lead to a favorable change in decision making (when changes in benefits, harms, cost, and any other impact are considered).” In this essay, I will attempt to apply, to translate, Ioannidis’ criteria for “useful clinical research” – research that does not waste research dollars and research effort – to the scientific field known as Climate Science.
Let’s acknowledge that there seems to be a more clearly defined line in medicine between clinical research and general research, Ioannidis’ blue-sky research that looks for new knowledge and better understanding of the complexities of the human body. Nevertheless, there is something for us to learn from Ioannidis’ comments about useful research. Moreover, this is not intended to be an essay ofanswers but rather an essay of questions.
For the purposes of this essay, we will set the definition of “useful climate research” as:
“Climate research that can lead to a favorable change in decision making regarding climate when changes in benefits, harms, cost, and other impacts are considered.”. . . .
Is much of current climate research useless?
Posted on July 6, 2016 | 235 comments
by Kip Hansen
John P. A. Ioannidis dropped another cluster bomb on the medical research world two weeks ago with his latest paper which concludes:
“Overall, not only are most research findings false, but, furthermore, most of the true findings are not useful.”
Continue reading →
Ioannidis [pronounced yo-NEE-dees) ] is not some grumpy gadfly or crusty curmudgeon casting stones at his fellow medical researchers. He speaks from a high bully pulpit at Stanford University School of Medicine where he is a Professor of Medicine and of Health Research and Policy, a Professor of Statistics (Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences) as well as the Director of the Stanford Prevention Research Center. [full bio here] . . . .
Ioannidis says “’Useful clinical research’ means that it can lead to a favorable change in decision making (when changes in benefits, harms, cost, and any other impact are considered).” In this essay, I will attempt to apply, to translate, Ioannidis’ criteria for “useful clinical research” – research that does not waste research dollars and research effort – to the scientific field known as Climate Science.
Let’s acknowledge that there seems to be a more clearly defined line in medicine between clinical research and general research, Ioannidis’ blue-sky research that looks for new knowledge and better understanding of the complexities of the human body. Nevertheless, there is something for us to learn from Ioannidis’ comments about useful research. Moreover, this is not intended to be an essay ofanswers but rather an essay of questions.
For the purposes of this essay, we will set the definition of “useful climate research” as:
“Climate research that can lead to a favorable change in decision making regarding climate when changes in benefits, harms, cost, and other impacts are considered.”. . . .