In this second installment, BSI's Emily Kaplan breaks down the difference between corollary studies and causal studies. Corollary studies can show relationships between data sets, they do not establish cause.

While some research claims eating red meat and processed meat can be harmful, the evidence does not support this. Any harm is generally reported as relative risk, with little to no change in absolute risk. Also, the harms of eating meat tend not to be causal, with all negative associations disappearing when meat is consumed as part of a healthy diet.

JAMA, recently published an essay lamenting that the National Institutes of Health would be slowing awards for "misinformation research," aka, studies to justify censorship.

BSI’s Emily Kaplan explains the difference between absolute risk and relative risk, using a fictitious example to illustrate how results can be made to sound profound, when they really aren’t.

Despite recent scandals of research misconduct and error, the academic world still seems determined to look the other way.

“I learnt very early on in my career that you cannot slice data the way they did.” says John Mandrola, a cardiac electrophysiologist.

Publish or perish, the null ritual, improper incentives, the inference revolution, illusions of certainty, statistical power… Gerd Gigerenzer looks back at trends in science to […]

The Food and Drug Administration’s recent approval of new Alzheimer’s drugs sparked a flicker of hope for the millions affected by this devastating disease. But this progress […]

A neuroscience image sleuth finds signs of fabrication in scores of Alzheimer’s articles, threatening a reigning theory of the disease