No. This Study Does Not Prove What You Think It Does.
Sometimes when studies are published, they are interpreted as supporting a particular idea or point of view, but the interpretations are flawed. Often, we see this about topics that are being debated in societal or political arenas. In this section of our website, you will find a three-part series, originally published in the Parents PACK newsletter, in which we addressed common misconceptions about the practice of science (and scientists) and used some specific examples to help sort out the headlines and wade through social media feeds. You’ll also find a page dedicated to comments on other studies. If you take just one thing away from this section of the website, we hope you will have come to realize that science does not easily fit into a sound bite and, most often, it is not an “either-or” proposition, so if something sounds too simple, you probably need to ask more questions.
Skeptics & mavericks (part I)
This page, part 1 of the original three-part series, discusses some common misconceptions about science and scientists and includes the following sections:
- There’s no such thing as “my science and your science”
- Scientists are skeptics
- Mavericks are rare
- The takeaways
Nobel-worthy science (part II)
This page, part 2 of the original three-part series, describes some studies that ultimately changed our understanding of previously accepted science. Offering links to the original studies, descriptions of the development of understanding about each topic and a relevant timeline, this segment discusses:
- Australia antigen
- Prions
- Cause of ulcers
Misinterpreted science (part III)
This page, part 3 of the original three-part series, addresses some studies that were misinterpreted and looks at what aspects were at the heart of the confusion and why. Each featured paper is discussed in the following subsections:
- Study
- Brief summary
- Misconception
- Problem with interpretation
Comments on other studies
This page features comments and analyses related to research that was misinterpreted or raised questions regarding the way they were designed or the conclusions drawn.
Resources for evaluating information
Reviewed by Paul A. Offit, MD on July 29, 2024