wired | The fields of psychology and cognitive neuroscience have had some rough sledding in recent years. The bumps have come from high-profile fraudsters, concerns about findings that can’t be replicated, and criticism from within the scientific ranks about shoddy statistics. A
new study adds to these woes, suggesting that a wide range of
neuroscience studies lack the statistical power to back up their
findings.
This problem isn’t just academic. The authors argue that there are
real-world consequences, from wasting the lives of lab animals and
squandering public funding on unreliable studies, to potentially
stopping clinical trials with human patients prematurely (or not
stopping them soon enough).
“This paper should help by revealing exactly how bad things have
gotten,” said Hal Pashler, a psychologist at the University of
California, San Diego. Pashler was not involved with the new study, but
he and colleagues have previously raised concerns about statistical problems with fMRI brain scan studies in human subjects.
The aim of the new study wasn’t to rake neuroscientists over the
coals, but to get them talking about how to change the culture and the
incentives that promote statistically unreliable studies, says
co-author Marcus Munafò, a psychologist at the University of Bristol,
United Kingdom. “We’re really trying to be constructive about this.” Fist tap Dale.
