Reliability of neuroscience research questioned

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 12, 2013 9:19 PM GMT
    http://www.sciencecodex.com/reliability_of_neuroscience_research_questioned-110141

    New research has questioned the reliability of neuroscience studies, saying that conclusions could be misleading due to small sample sizes.

    A team led by academics from the University of Bristol reviewed 48 articles on neuroscience meta-analysis which were published in 2011 and concluded that most had an average power of around 20 per cent – a finding which means the chance of the average study discovering the effect being investigated is only one in five.

    The paper, being published in Nature Reviews Neuroscience today [10 April], reveals that small, low-powered studies are 'endemic' in neuroscience, producing unreliable research which is inefficient and wasteful.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 13, 2013 12:58 AM GMT
    http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

    An analysis of many high impact studies published in major science outlets such as Nature has shown that more than half of research results couldn't be replicated, and almost a third were outright false.

    So, you know, I wouldn't worry too much about neuroscience in particular.