Scrutinizing Scientific Research Reports for Error

The art of convincing readers and the public at large about a product, idea, or notion is not so much art, as it is repetition and clever wording. Any advert placed out there has no doubt been tooth combed for legal infringements, before being sent out to the public. Statistics are cleverly manipulated to seemingly support and buttress contentions - witness the research report of hemlines and stock market correlation. The reader needs to be wary of outlandish claims and over estimated worth in research until it is reviewed by peers or made true by repetitive and replicative research

When assessing research people may look at The Lancet and immediately accept its articles as truthful and beyond opprobrium. The Lancet is probably one of the most respected medical journals out there, in line with the likes of the New England Journal of Medicine. This should not blind researchers to maintaining objectivity and performing due diligence despite the cache of these medical publications. Even the New England Journal of Medicine should be scrutinized for errors and biased opinion

When it come s to documentary's look at Sicko by Michael Moore as pop culture movie stuff, designed to entertain but not educate - light entertainment which cannot be used as a credible reference one would quote. No doubt Sicko does highlight issues, and I'm glad there are people like Moore who take healthcare and Big Pharmacy apart. Moore doesn't offer himself as a credible reference, and this is to his credit.

The old saying goes, "Believe half of what you see, and nothing that you hear." As with politics, you have to go beyond the word of the researcher or doctor and look for yourself in what lies behind the scenes of the research considered. You have to make an informed opinion, not just an opinion when you consider the results of research. The information could be skewed because of mistake, the slant of the questions on the survey, or the intended or unintended hidden agendas.