The Inside Story Of How An Ivy League Food Scientist Turned Shoddy Data Into Viral Studies
Brian Wansink won fame, funding, and influence for his science-backed advice on healthy eating. Now, emails show how the Cornell professor and his colleagues have hacked and massaged low-quality data into headline-friendly studies to “go virally big time.” In the summer of 2013, Özge Siğirci, a young scientist in Turkey, had not yet arrived at Cornell University for her new research stint. But she already had an assignment from her future boss, Brian Wansink: Find something interesting about all-you-can-eat buffets. As the head of Cornell’s prestigious food psychology research unit, the Food and Brand Lab, Wansink was a social science star. His dozens of studies about why and how we eat received mainstream attention everywhere from O, the Oprah Magazine to the Today Show to the New York Times. At the heart of his work was an accessible, inspiring message: Weight loss is possible for anyone willing to make a few small changes to their environment, without need for strict diets or intense exercise.
[feature_box_creator style=”1″ width=”” top_margin=”” bottom_margin=”” top_padding=”” right_padding=”” bottom_padding=”” left_padding=”20″ alignment=”center” bg_color=”” bg_color_end=”” border_color=”” border_weight=”” border_radius=”” border_style=”” font_size=”9″ font_style=”normal” font_spacing=”-2″]
Research hacking, we knew it existed, and we knew it is common in mainstream academia. The “peer review” chatter is just that chatter.
In psychology research, there is standard that needs to be met to conclude that the experiment is a success. Research projects to be considered statistically significant rely on a calculation called the p-value. Everybody looks for a p-value of 0.05 or as close to it as possible or less. If greater than .05 we have a problem!
P-Hacking – “Tweaking” data to the point of manipulating the results which is data crunching is the new hack. Sad to tell that individual that we value highly and would have no reason to doubt their word (researchers) are engulfed in the common practice of data manipulation.
I do not blame researchers trying to manipulate the data, after all, research takes a lot of their time, and they would love to see something positive happen, and so if it does not happen through correct research, then manipulation will have to do. Data manipulation is of course not acceptable but when the scientist is exposed only a small amount people will know the real truth then will weasel him/herself out of it.
We constantly hear of scientific studies that later on when some other researcher is trying to replicate it is not able to get the same results. If the result is not reproducible doesn’ this mean that the data was incorrect or manipulated? Don’t we hear this all the time?
Coffee is one of the examples that come to mind. One day it is good, another day it is not, another it is neutral. Afterward, it has curative powers, or it is not a diuretic or is it? Who knows what is correct? If you can not trust scientific reports or simply data, who are we to trust?
It is a sad reality that you cannot trust things you read. If you read and are interested in the subject make sure you use your own experiences to conclude and you need to start trusting your intuition.
I like to deal with people I trust in the subject and have been in the trenches with that particular subject. People who have little to gain by giving you the information. You also have to trust your intuition and your experiences.
[/feature_box_creator]
The Inside Story Of How An Ivy League Food Scientist Turned Shoddy Data Into Viral Studies
