"This isn't a research paper, it's a massacre"
TL;DR GWAS on uk biobank kills over 400 candidate gene studies
How would I know if my own research area was this wrong?
Our usual safeguards won’t save us: peer review, meta-analysis, 100s of conceptual replications, listening to eminent researchers. All failed.
This should be keeping us up at night.
37
622
1K
8
111
258
Replies
@BioMickWatson
that’s is absolutely bonkers stuff. and here i was thinking this kind of stuff could only happen in psychology
0
0
7
@BioMickWatson
Yeah. Meanwhile there are many who would judge a bogus candidate gene study superior to a large GWAS because it is "hypothesis-based" and might lead to "mechanism". A mechanism for a non-existent phenomenon.
1
6
25
@BioMickWatson
Seems like they also used PGC data, which includes the CONVERGE data that a certain Government has fought tooth and nail to not let out of the country and has sanctioned the researchers involved
0
0
1
@BioMickWatson
Things can quickly go off rails once the number of people with vested interest within a (sub-) field becomes big enough so that they can (increasingly exclusively) review each others' papers. Replicate each others findings. Etc. Wrong becomes self-sustained
0
0
6
@BioMickWatson
@offbyjuan
I’m just surprised this paper didn’t get rejected because, unlike the debunked ones, they don’t show the mechanism 💅🏻
0
0
0