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