Truthies, Sloppy Science, Small Samples, and the Dangers They Pose to Public Health

Abstract

During the past year, incidents of sloppy science or worse have been prominent in the mainstream press. Communication is essential for science to work at all. Science is a rubric for asking questions so that they can be answered empirically and verifiably. A scientist owes other scientists clear communication so that the work can be checked, the understanding can be refined, and progress can be made. Misleading other scientists through the omission of essential information or exaggerating the quality and importance of evidence or conclusions is not simply bad form but a violation of scientific ethics. Because science takes place in a societal context, failures of commission or omission, whether involving popular or scholarly communication, are ethically compromising. Sloppy science is supported by a set of institutional practices that collectively have failed to stop its growth. It is dangerous to tolerate sloppy science. When we allow sloppy science to go uncorrected, we implicitly endorse misinformation. We hope to minimize this effect. To editorialize on this topic has little value. Instead, we analyze how scientists, public health researchers, and gatekeepers have come to tolerate sloppy science. We also propose ways to end manifestations of sloppy science that erode public trust.

Note:

Funding Information: We had no funding for this paper.

Conflict of Interests: We have no competing interests.

Keywords: healthcare, sloppy science, covid 19

JEL Classification: I10,