Comment by moh_maya | Hacker News Reader

Comment by moh_maya | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

from a twitter thread [1] critiquing the paper, by a neurogeneticist [2]:

" And we can test them on a whole range of behaviours, without correction for multiple tests, without a hypothesis of which should show an effect, and again without a replication sample In this case, the ones getting a SCZ fecal transplant showed greater activity, but less anxiety and less "depressive" behaviours. Why? Who cares? You can spin these kinds of findings any way you want. We all love a good story."

Please read the cited thread.

/disclaimer: I am not a neurologist / neurobiologist. My training was in genetics & molecular biology, and I've since moved out of active research / life sciences. But bad statistics and gross over-interpretation bothers me immensely; folks read such breathless reports & then start doing all kinds of harmful stuff because it's been proven! But it's not. It may be a hypothesis (and this report may not even qualify as that). And cruel as it is, we still don't understand nearly enough about so many things in biology to be able to address these disorders.

[1] https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1095012297200844800.html

[2] https://www.kjmitchell.com/

I'll take one well-designed and peer-reviewed study over 100 random Twitter threads.

the point of the twitter thread is that it is not a well designed study.

Yeah, but I'm not a scientist in this field, so I have zero idea of whether the Twitter thread itself has any credibility. So I'll ignore it.

What about twitter threads from well-respected researchers in the field? What about a poorly-designed study (for the reasons pointed out in the thread)?

I don't know if the Twitter thread is from a well-respected researcher, or whether their criticisms of the study are valid. That's my point.

It sounds like you're not the target audience of either the paper or the twitter thread.

Again, you make it sound like these are somehow equivalent. Why even have peer-reviewed journals in the age of Twitter?

Because this is how science has always been done, it's just visible on twitter now. Someone submits a paper to be published. A few scientists look it over and check for basic correctness. Then the paper is published and people read it. If the paper is interesting, they start talking about it. They use the breakroom, email, twitter, facebook, science journals, backs of envelopes, and anything else that's convenient. This conversation about a paper is a critical part of the community absorbing a new piece of evidence. From these conversations, subsequent experiments are planned and published and science keeps moving forwards. These conversations are not as formal as a journal publication, but they are much more formal and structured than laypeople usually realize. Comments are worded in particular ways, and only certain kinds of objections make sense. Proving things about nature is an excruciating task that requires an enormous level of care and evidence.

I don't see any reason to believe that guy is well respected outside of the pharmaceutical industry.

One problem, my cousin has schizophrenia and often seems plenty confident and happy. The only time I’ve seen him otherwise is during a migraine, which made sense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com