Information manipulation

Information Manipulation/Misrepresentation

When THR is reported in the media, manipulation techniques are sometimes employed. The press may, or may not be aware that this is happening, but often the attempt is quite transparent, and the research required to prove it, so trivial, it is hard to argue they are not complicit.

Here are ways to spot this, including the less obvious omissions and questionable use of language.

This page can also be used to point out ways to detect such manipulation and what to look for, including people and sites that may have advice on the subject.

Everything at once (the shotgun approach?)

ACSH Article on cleveland press release (calling out blatant misinformation) the acsh writing on exactly the sort of misinformation detailed here, great examples of how obvious this must be to the writers, and how logic and reason are ignored.

• "The article is a simmering mixture of equivocation, cherry-picked statistics, and outright lies. There's an eight-letter word for it we won't use to preserve our family-friendly reputation. Let's look at some specifics and hopefully help Cleveland Clinic right its ship."
  

Creative use of language

(Miss) use of modal verbs

Telegraph headline Vaping may be as bad for the heart as cigarettes.

For example the word may is doing all the work here, when we read the article, and the study it reports on, we find that short term changes in heart rate and blood pressure where detected, however nothing harmful or long term. Such things as drinking a cup of coffee, running for a bus, or a surprise gift, all cause similar changes.

Such tactics can be argued to go against principles of 'good ethics' particularly where (public) health is concerned, and where not likely to be obvious, context (as provided above with coffee etc.) should be provided. This is not unreasonable, the public expects high standards, when reading about things that are used to make health choices. Please see the next picture particularly the second tweet pictured, regarding the reasons for being untruthful, and why that isn't ok.

---

Omitting important information

Dr Gardner, a screenshot from twitter

Many media reports, and even press releases seem to use the tactic pictured in the image, failing to mention that the results are from a study in mice.

Importantly mice are not little people, at best, a mouse study can indicate areas of interest to look at in humans. Only if the mouse model accurately produces results, that can be reliably, and repeatedly used, to predict the outcome in humans, can it be used this way. Otherwise it can be used to guide research, and explore new ideas, but absolutely not used to predict harm in humans.

Clearly the public should not be confused in this way, particularly if no evidence has been found for these results to reflect what happens in humans. Omission of information that is required to make an informed decision, particularly if the public can't reasonably expected to deduce or know, is a violation of ethics.

Dr Gardner Has a PHD in developmental neurobiology, and has taught healthcare ethics.

There is information on this page Does nicotine damage the developing adolescent brain? Including the big issue; many millions worldwide started smoking in their teens, if such damage occurred in humans (this has been studied, scientists have looked), it would be trivial to find it, no such issues have been found, none.

---

Image manipulation

Screenshot from Twitter referring to image manipulation, and it’s prevalence in scientific papers. This is far too common in all science, not only THR.

New York Times article By Elisabeth Bik

Dr. Bik is a microbiologist who has worked at Stanford University and for the Dutch National Institute for Health. She works to find and bring to attention such issues, please see the article for details.

She is also active on Twitter

---

See also

See our page relating to poor quality research: Substandard research but be aware that even good science can be misrepresented, though often the two issues go hand in hand.

Suggestions for additions to this page

Here you may add links or information from credible sources, examples of problems ‘in the wild’ screenshots etc. for our regular page editors to address, all information must be factual and based on evidence, anything without sufficient evidence will be deleted.

Instructions for editors of this page

 Warning: Contentious subject, please would Page Authors take care to remain factual and include evidence/examples.

External links

https://scienceintegritydigest.com/about/ Science integrity direct focuses on image manipulation in scientific papers.