Bad Science Research Articles

Non-pharmaceutical Interventions and the Infodemic on Twitter: Lessons Learned from Italy during the Covid-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic changed expectations for information dissemination and use around the globe, challenging accepted models of communications, leadership, and social systems. We explore how social media discourse about COVID-19 in Italy was affected by the rapid spread of the virus, and how themes in postings changed with the adoption of social distancing measures and non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI). We used topic modeling and social network analysis to highlight critical dimensions of conversations around COVID-19: 1) topics in social media postings about the Coronavirus; 2) the scope and reach of social networks; and 3) changes in social media content as the nation moved from partial to full social distancing. Twitter messages sent in Italy between February 11th and March 10th, 2020. 74,306 Tweets sent by institutions, news sources, elected officials, scientists and social media influencers. Messages were retweeted more than 1.2 million times globally. Non-parametric chi-square statistic with residual analysis to identify categories, chi-square test for linear trend, and Social Network Graphing. The first phase of the pandemic was dominated by social media influencers, followed by a focus on the economic consequences of the virus and placing blame on immigrants. As the crisis deepened, science-based themes began to predominate, with a focus on reducing the spread of the virus through physical distancing and business closures Our findings highlight the importance of messaging in social media in gaining the public’s trust and engagement during a pandemic. This requires credible scientific voices to garner public support for effective mitigation. Fighting the spread of an infectious disease goes hand in hand with stemming the dissemination of lies, bad science, and misdirection.

Was "science" on the ballot?

Labeling dissent as “anti-science” is bad social science and bad politics

Constructing Paul: The Canonical Paul by Luke Timothy Johnson

Reviewed by: Constructing Paul: The Canonical Paul by Luke Timothy Johnson John Gillman luke timothy johnson, Constructing Paul: The Canonical Paul, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020). Pp. xiv + 385. $50. Noted biblical scholar and prodigious author Luke Timothy Johnson meticulously constructs and interprets the canonical Paul from the building blocks of his letters and with occasional references to Acts. Monographs on Paul abound. This one serves as the capstone to several perspectives on Paul that J. has vigorously defended over the years in his commentaries and The Writings of the New Testament (3rd ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010). His approach is indeed “conservative and cautious” (p. 2) as well as bold and challenging. Frequently, J. evaluates his reading of Paul as “responsible” (see, e.g., the heading “Reading Paul Responsibly” [289]). I could not help but wonder what this implies about divergent perspectives. The eleven chapters are divided into three parts: preliminary scaffolding, the materials, and the elements. In the first part, J. assesses the sources, sketches Paul’s life and ministry, provides an overview of the Pauline correspondence, and situates Paul in early Christianity. He levels a vigorous and sustained—to my mind, persuasive—broadside against the widely accepted two-category distinction between the undisputed and disputed letters with respect to authorship. He deconstructs the assembled argumentation for this position labeling it “the fallacy of false grouping,” and discards it into the bin of “bad science” (p. 38). Instead, J. argues that there is no consistent Pauline core, such as justification, that serves as a measuring rod for authenticity. As a more adequate conceptual model for categorizing the letters, J. proposes a framework of multiple clusters differentiated on the bases of “strong family resemblance” (p. 74). He identifies five such clusters: 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Galatians and Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Colossians and Ephesians, and the Pastorals. He classifies Philippians and Philemon, which do not fall into any of these clusters, as outliers. I am struck by the irony, for these two letters are included among the seven authentically Pauline compositions according to a plurality of commentators. Noting the co-senders named in many of the letters, J. proposes that “something very much like a Pauline ‘school’” (p. 73) possibly played an active role in the composition of the letters. Such a model of authorship would help explain the complexity in the correspondence. The three chapters in part 2 focus on Paul’s Jewish identity and his place in the Jewish world, his use of Scripture, and his place in Greco-Roman culture. Noting parallels with the OT prophets, J. argues that Paul understands himself to be a prophetic Jew, meaning that he “considers the spirit of prophecy to be active and powerful in himself” (p. 143). That Paul is a prophet is implied in his self-designation as apostle. That may well be the case, but, if so, I am left wondering why Paul never specifically refers to himself as a prophet [End Page 148] (see 1 Thess 5:20; 1 Cor 12:28, 29; 14:37; Eph 2:20; 3:5; 4:11; cf. 1 Cor 13:2). Citing Rom 10:2, J. contrasts Paul’s own moment of “recognition” with his fellow Jews who are zealous for God. J. renders the phrase ἀλλ’ οὐ κατ’ ἐπίγνωσιν as “but not according to recognition” (p. 140). Although not as literal, the translations offered by the NRSV (“but it is not enlightened”) and Joseph A. Fitzmyer (“but it is not well informed”; see Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 33; New York: Doubleday, 1993] 581]) would seem to be clearer for the contemporary reader. In the third part, J. delves into the claims of experience—that of Paul and of believers; the convictions, myths, symbols, and metaphors employed by the apostle; Paul’s voice as it is heard in Philemon; and, finally, whether Paul is oppressor or liberator. J. explores the texture of Paul’s experience, both ordinary and extraordinary, and imagines the panoply of his readers’ experiences. The metaphors for the church range from God’s plantation to God’s house—including the Body of Christ. Considering Philemon to be “an excellent point of entry into Paul’s...

The Clean Body: A Modern History by Peter Ward

Reviewed by: The Clean Body: A Modern History by Peter Ward Steve Zdatny Peter Ward. The Clean Body: A Modern History. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2019. xi + 313 pp. Ill. $34.95 (9780773559387). This fascinating and elegantly written new book by Peter Ward, emeritus professor of history at the University of British Columbia, explores the underappreciated revolution in hygiene that transformed sensibilities and practices in the modern [End Page 121] age. Once we were dirty, now we are clean. Once we were smelly, now we are sweet. Once we were lousy, now we are vermin-free. The Clean Body reminds us of just how much this mattered to the human condition. Moving beyond national histories, Ward collects sources in four languages: French, German, Italian, and, naturally, English. He makes passing references to other parts of the continent but concentrates on these countries, in addition to English-speaking North America. It is an impressively broad canvas and diverse enough to illustrate the way history moves at different speeds in different places. The author begins his story in a not-so-distant past, when “bathing was highly exceptional, washing irregular, and cleanliness mostly a matter of appearances” (p. 6). Louis XIV, he notes, took two baths in his life, and neither was about getting clean. Drawing especially on the influential work of Georges Vigarello, Ward writes that early modern cleanliness referred to linen and not to bodies, and only the rich had access to it. Water was not only scarce and expensive, it was considered dangerous. In the eighteenth century, elite opinion rediscovered the value of baths. In a world that still knew nothing of germ theory, washing remained detached from health, demonstrating that even bad science could lead to sound practice. Of course, none of this mattered much to the urban poor or the great majority of people who lived and worked on the land and did not have the means to keep clean, even if they had understood the necessity. The ordinary practice of hygiene was embedded in the folk wisdom that surrounded it. Filth was part of life. Dirty skin was a carapace, a strong personal bouquet, a turn-on. Modesty and Christian propriety made genitals a no-go zone for washing. Peasant society was shrouded in superstitions that tied grooming to all sorts of unhappy consequences. Ward also looks into the difficulties that confronted the urban working classes, when it came to keeping clean. Water needed to be lugged up and down stairs. Soap was expensive and privacy all but impossible in crowded, unheated flats. Why bother? As a cultural matter, the bourgeoisie, believing not just that cleanliness was next to godliness but that it was an excellent way to distinguish themselves from the “vile multitude,” became the driving forces of the hygiene revolution. As the nineteenth century proceeded, they bought running water into their homes and set aside spaces for their toilettes. This sort of individual progress came at a cost beyond the reach of working people. At the same time, governments, either out of fear of social disorder or a genuine desire to improve the lives of the masses, began to invest in public hygiene. They built municipal bains-douches, laid down water and sewer systems, and used the new institutions of free and compulsory primary education to teach children the moral and practical benefits of cleanliness. This process depended fundamentally on “the conquest of water.” There could be no clean bodies without it. It was not conquered everywhere at once. The Protestant North got modern plumbing before the poorer, Catholic South. And at virtually every moment and in every way North America led the field. Through it all, the details of hygienic practice remain fuzzy. While he can count the spigots and measure the kilometers of pipe, Ward cannot say for certain how often people actually bathed; the evidence is that, until the last quarter of the twentieth century, it wasn’t very often. [End Page 122] As bodies became cleaner, so did clothes. Where most garments could not have survived a good washing, people wore what they had until it shredded—or until they died, when their old rags would be passed...

Reading Genesis Well: Navigating History, Poetry, Science, and Truth in Genesis 1-11

Reading Genesis Well: Navigating History, Poetry, Science, and Truth in Genesis 1-11

Vinča Burials in the Research of Miloje M. Vasić

Miloje M. Vasić (1869–1956) is considered to be the founding father of Serbian archaeology. This paper directly challenges, as based on detailed archival research, the prevailing view that his excavation of the Vinča archaeological site is a model standard for Serbian archaeology. Instead, Vasić’s handling of the excavation was selective, non-systematic and destructive when viewed today from the perspective of modern practices.
 Vasić originally gained authority based on the discovery of Vinča, a prehistoric archaeological site that contains layers from the Neolithic to the middle ages. In his zeal to uncover “prehistory”, he deliberately ignored the other archaeological layers present. The most significant example of neglected archaeological remains is his excavations of Vinča’s medieval cemetery where he did not document observations systematically. This prioritization of the importance of one archaeological period over another was reflected in the further development of archaeology in Serbia, so that medieval archaeology was treated as marginal and second-rate compared to others.
 The aim of this paper, therefore, is to contextualize Vasić’s approach through the methods used in the history of archaeology. The key research question thereof is how Miloje M. Vasić failed to document the burials at the Vinča site, which is the consequent reason why there is little to no documented evidence of them.
 The theoretical and methodological basis of the analysis is based on the approach of Gavin Lucas who views the creation of the primary field documentation as testimony. Lucas notes that the debate concerning knowledge production had drifted from merely an epistemological issue to a phenomenon centered around archaeological practice. Here the key questions have come to concern the social and material setting of knowledge production and not the objective coherence of the argument.
 Burials that were noted in Vasić’s documentation are categorized into four groups: 1) unwanted or medieval burials; 2) incidental burials originating from prehistory 3) an “ossuary” from Vinča containing nine skeletons and 4) imagined multiple cremations based on one found cremation. Therefore, even while documenting several “lateral” prehistoric graves, he entirely omitted any thorough documentation of the medieval cemetery, considering them of less import.
 If there is any lesson that may be learned from this journey through the history of archaeological practice, it is that archaeological documentation as a form of testimony should be done ethically, adequately and responsibly. It should not be done according to the practices of the “bad science” of its founding-fathers.

Forensic DNA phenotyping and its politics of legitimation and contestation: Views of forensic geneticists in Europe.

Forensic DNA Phenotyping (FDP) is a set of techniques that aim to infer externally visible characteristics in humans - such as eye, hair and skin color - and biogeographical ancestry of an unknown person, based on biological material. FDP has been applied in various jurisdictions in a limited number of high-profile cases to provide intelligence for criminal investigations. There are on-going controversies about the reliability and validity of FDP, which come together with debates about the ethical challenges emerging from the use of this technology in the criminal justice system. Our study explores how, in the context of complex politics of legitimation of and contestation over the use of FDP, forensic geneticists in Europe perceive this technology's potential applications, utility and risks. Forensic geneticists perform several forms of discursive boundary work, making distinctions between science and the criminal justice system, experts and non-experts, and good and bad science. Such forms of boundary work reconstruct the complex positioning vis-à-vis legal and scientific realities. In particular, while mobilizing interest in FDP, forensic geneticists simultaneously carve out notions of risk, accountability and scientific conduct that perform distance from FDP' implications in the criminal justice system.

Aconitase: To Be or not to Be Inside Plant Glyoxysomes, That Is the Question.

After the discovery in 1967 of plant glyoxysomes, aconitase, one the five enzymes involved in the glyoxylate cycle, was thought to be present in the organelles, and although this was found not to be the case around 25 years ago, it is still suggested in some textbooks and recent scientific articles. Genetic research (including the study of mutants and transcriptomic analysis) is becoming increasingly important in plant biology, so metabolic pathways must be presented correctly to avoid misinterpretation and the dissemination of bad science. The focus of our study is therefore aconitase, from its first localization inside the glyoxysomes to its relocation. We also examine data concerning the role of the enzyme malate dehydrogenase in the glyoxylate cycle and data of the expression of aconitase genes in Arabidopsis and other selected higher plants. We then propose a new model concerning the interaction between glyoxysomes, mitochondria and cytosol in cotyledons or endosperm during the germination of oil-rich seeds.

Bad science cannot be used as a basis of constructive dialogue: Response to Prof Nicoli Nattrass commentary

This Commentary is a response to a Commentary published in the May/June 2020 issue:
 Nattrass N. Why are black South African students less likely to consider studying biological sciences? S Afr J Sci. 2020;116(5/6), Art. #7864, 2 pages. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2020/7864
 Responses to the Commentary in the May/June 2020 issue have been published collectively in a special issue of Volume 116.

We object to Bad Science: Poor research practices should be discouraged!

This Commentary is a response to a Commentary published in the May/June 2020 issue:
 Nattrass N. Why are black South African students less likely to consider studying biological sciences? S Afr J Sci. 2020;116(5/6), Art. #7864, 2 pages. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2020/7864
 Responses to the Commentary in the May/June 2020 issue have been published collectively in a special issue of Volume 116.

A pandemic of bad science

ABSTRACT What can epidemiological models tell us about our potential exposure to COVID-19? What progress is being made with regard to coronavirus vaccine development? These days, the general public is asking these questions and more as the COVID-19 pandemic rages on. That there is an extraordinary level of interest in coronavirus news should come as no surprise, but this elevated interest society now has in pandemic-related science has unintended consequences that shouldn’t be ignored. Studies are being rushed to publication even in well-regarded journals. Unvetted articles on so-called preprint servers have received enormous attention. Predatory journals are giving anyone with the ability to pay the opportunity to publish pseudoscience that can be amplified by mainstream news sources. Marketers are exploiting the public’s desperation for protection against COVID-19 and adding a scientific sheen to dubious products. And perhaps-well-meaning experts in data science are producing a raft of arguably meaningless research, creating a distraction at best and wasting valuable resources at worst.

COVID-19 and ethical preparedness?

SummaryMankind has to prepare for a pandemic with respect to medical and practical aspects, but also with respect to ethical issues. There are various ethical guidelines for managing infectious disease outbreaks, but they do not apply to the specific aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic, since they were formulated after the different kinds of outbreaks of avian influenza and Ebola. Today we are confronted with completely new issues endangering our fundamental human rights. As COVID-19 is spreading all over the world, we are in a desperate situation to find treatment solutions; however, despite the urgency, scientific rules have to be applied as bad science is unethical since it might be harmful for patients. Fake news and alternative facts might not be easily recognized and are also threatening scientific values. Pandemics might be leading to a meltdown of the health system if no measures are being taken constraining fundamental human rights. Tracking of persons is violating human rights as well if not accepted on a voluntary basis. A failure to have safeguards for times of crisis leads to a scarcity of medicinal products and goods resulting in a nationalistic approach and ignorance of international solidarity. And last but not least selective measures and triage in intensive care have to be taught to young physicians and nursing staff in medical schools in order to be prepared in times of an infectious disease outbreak and scarcity of resources.

Karl Barth’s Christology and Jan Christian Smuts’ Human Rights Rhetoric

South African statesman Jan Christian Smuts’ (1870–1950) domestic and international politics diverge greatly; his domestic policy has been eschewed as a precursor to apartheid (1948–1994), but his international policy heralded for advancing human rights rhetoric because he authored the charters for both the League of Nations (1920) and United Nations (1945). Scholars struggle to reconcile these seemingly conflicting legacies. WEB du Bois, Peder Anker, and Saul Dubow suggest that Smuts embodies capitalist greed, bad science, and redefined political terms. I argue that Karl Barth’s theology adroitly illuminates the problem of empire for Smuts and present day appeals to human rights rhetoric. Barth’s theology poses a three-fold challenge to Smuts. First, Barth articulates a critique of natural theology found embedded within Smuts’ philosophy of holism; second, Barth critiques liberal politics that Smuts typifies; and, third, Barth’s refusal to side with Eastern or Western empires runs counter to Smuts’ imperial sensibilities. Ultimately, I argue that Barth’s Christology offers a constructive alternative vision for sociality.

Bad Science

In this episode of Open Science Talk, we are joined by the founder of the campaign #bulliedintobadscience, Corina Logan. Logan is a Senior Researcher at the Department of Human Behavior, Ecology and Culture at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. She explains what she means by "Bad Science", including important terms like P-hacking/data fishing and HARKing. She also talks about how Open Science could help in the fight against bad science.
 The #BulliedIntoBadScience (BIBS) campaign consists of early career researchers leading individuals and institutions in adopting open practices to improve research rigor (from all fields, not only the sciences).
 The host of this episode is Erik Lieungh.
 This episode was first published 3 December 2018.

Preregistration in Science

Why is it important to preregister research studies? How do you do it, and what kind of bad science do you avoid when you do this within an open science framework?All these questions are answered by our guest, associate professor Matthias Mittner at the research group for cognitive neurosciences at UiT the Arctic University of Norway. The host of this episode is Erik Lieungh.
 This episode was first published 9 May 2019.

Disciplines, Doctrines, and Deviant Science

ABSTRACT This is a reply to a comment by Kåre Letrud [Letrud, Kåre. 2019. “The Gordian Knot of Demarcation: Tying Up Some Loose Ends.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 32 (1): 3–11. doi:10.1080/02698595.2019.1618031] on the author's definition of pseudoscience. Pseudosciences are doctrines. An epistemic discipline that is defined solely by its area of study cannot be a pseudoscience, but if a discipline is bound to a doctrine, then it will be pseudoscientific if that doctrine is a pseudoscience. Contrary to most other types of shortcomings in science, pseudoscience involves the sustained promotion of teachings that block or impede the self-correcting and self-improving mechanisms in science. What makes pseudoscience more dangerous than other types of bad science is its doctrinal resistance to correction.

Bad science in the time of COVID-19

Bad science in the time of COVID-19

THE SCIENTIFIC IMBROGLIO OF PSYCHOTHERAPY: A WAY OUT

espanolSe introduce la nocion de embrollo como instrumento critico. Si por un lado sirve para la identificacion de un estado confuso de las cosas, por otro invita a su clarificacion y salida. Dos embrollos se identifican en la psicoterapia. El primero es el enigma de como diferentes psicoterapias tienen, sin embargo, una eficacia similar. Se aclara de acuerdo con tres niveles de analisis: ontologico (distinguiendo entidades naturales versus interactivas), antropologico (factores comunes de las psicoterapias) y psicologico (ciertos efectos sanadores inherentes a toda practica curativa). El segundo es el problema de la demarcacion entre ciencia y pseudociencia. Siendo importante, el problema de la demarcacion encubre otros problemas todavia mas importantes que tienen que ver con la concepcion de ciencia al uso. Porque la demarcacion es subsidiaria de una concepcion positivista de ciencia, ella misma problematica cuando se aplica en clinica. Estos otros problemas se han identificado como mala ciencia, cientificismo e integracionismo. Aun cuando estos embrollos se han clarificado, la salida pasa por plantear la cuestion ontologica de base acerca de que es un trastorno psicologico, sin asumir la concepcion estandar como «averia» en mecanismos internos. Se elabora una idea de trastorno que tiene su base en los problemas de la vida. EnglishThe notion of imbroglio is introduced as a critical instrument. If on the one hand it serves to identify a confused state of affairs, on the other it invites its clarification and a way out. Two imbroglios are identified in psychotherapy. The first is the puzzle of how different psychotherapies, surprisingly, have similar efficacy. This is clarified according to three levels of analysis: ontological (distinguishing natural versus interactive entities), anthropological (common factors of psychotherapies), and psychological (certain healing effects inherent in all healing practices). The second imbroglio is the problem of the demarcation between science and pseudoscience. Although important, the problem of demarcation conceals other even more important problems that have to do with the current conception of science. This is because the demarcation is subsidiary to a positivist conception of science, itself problematic when applied in the clinic. These other problems have been identified as bad science, scientism, and integrationism. Even when these imbroglios have been clarified, the way out is to pose the basic ontological question about what is a psychological disorder, without assuming the standard conception as a «failure» in internal mechanisms. An idea of the disorder is raised that is based on life’s problems.

4 Archetype Reasons for Editorial Rejection

What makes an innovative materials study? Conceptual novelty is intrinsically difficult to quantify. There are common pitfalls that lead to rejection without review, leading to an editorial shorthand of archetype rejections. Here, we describe the most common reasons for rejection at Matter.

Why 'case finding' is bad science.

Why 'case finding' is bad science.