On BEE-L, we post links to studies and cite published work and articles often, but how reliable are they?
The following link deals with a different scientific area from bees, but I am quite certain it applies here, too.
http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v10/n9/full/nrd3439-c1.html
Some read scientific studies the way others read Gospel and, go further to infer what they want to see from what is written,. Some also exploit the natural ambiguities of language to 'prove' what they need to prove.
It seems that even without that deliberate stretching, the data and conclusions of such studies themselves are subject to some reasonable doubt.
We have run across similar warnings about the reliability of published, peer- reviewed work before but it is something we must always remember when the conclusions of studies , no matter how prestigious, run contrary to our own experience.
Here is another article:
http://www.pinnacledigest.com/blog/bill-frezza/financially-driven-erosion-scientific-integrity
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm