There's an interesting but sad article in the NY Times concerning failed cancer research coming from Duke researchers use of a genetic analysis for detecting cancer and for treatment; see: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/health/research/08genes.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2
One of the main points is that the amount of data that is collected in this approach is huge and the likelihood that there are significant errors in the data have been dismissed as "clerical errors" that had no effect on their conclusions. When a couple of statisticians examined the data from one project, they uncovered a variety of errors in the data and in the conclusions reached. The researchers appeared to believe that they had "gotten it right" and proceeded to build research empires on this quicksand. This belief or "intuition" was commented on by one of the statisticians: |“Our intuition is pretty darn poor,” Dr. Baggerly said. I have a feeling we might find something similar in the neuroimagining area. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=11325 or send a blank email to leave-11325-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
