This is a follow-up to one of my previous posts on the article by Why most published research is false by John P. A. Ioannidis. This article by the way is one of the most downloaded in PLOS medicine.

A really nice explanation of statistics, evidence and science including issues in Ioannidis article is one provided by the blog c0nc0rdance in its YouTube video “Why most published research is false”

In our own sphere of discussion, please pay heed to c0nc0rdance words of advise in seeking more high quality research, evidence and science -specially when performing socioeconomic assessments- and to understand the environment in which social science works.

Please start wearing your skeptical hat when anybody tries to push weak or small studies trying to overcome what we know about GM crops. Certainly more needs to be done in terms of high quality research to further evaluate what the impact of these technologies are, but there is some indications such as the ones published in our own literature review at IFPRI Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first decade .

Certainly wear that skeptical hat, when the person discussing a point of view, continues a conversation with statements such as “your or somebody is being in the pockets of big agra or big pharma” or when they start quoting published research uncritically specially poor done, small or unrepresentative studies with dubious sampling and analysis methods. This is the mark of somebody who does not understand science or who is trying to push and agenda.

Single result is not very persuasive to overturn a body of literature

Good practice is to always:
1) Seek repetition of good research
2) Have skepticism about weak or small studies
3) Have skepticism about small effect sizes
4) Have good theoretical underpinning of the phenomenon question

From the YouTube video on the Ioannidis article by