The submission title of the submitted article (which does NOT appear as the original title of the article) is probably a hat tip to the famous article by John P. A. Ioannidis, "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False."

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal...

The article by Ioannidis, which I think is the most downloaded ever article on PLoS Medicine, is well worth reading for guidance in how to avoid errors in research design.

But to the point of the accuracy of the submission title, what the underlying journal paper

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v14/n9/full/nn.2886.html

said was, "We reviewed 513 behavioral, systems and cognitive neuroscience articles in five top-ranking journals (Science, Nature, Nature Neuroscience, Neuron and The Journal of Neuroscience) and found that 78 used the correct procedure and 79 used the incorrect procedure. An additional analysis suggests that incorrect analyses of interactions are even more common in cellular and molecular neuroscience." In other words, half the time when the specific issue came up, the neuroscience authors got the procedure wrong.

AFTER EDIT: Meanwhile, a lot of other interesting comments have mentioned the role of statistics education or math-aversion in higher education in various disciplines. I'll comment here about some things I've learned about statistics since I completed my higher education, things I've self-educated about as a homeschooling parent for the last two decades and now a mathematics teacher in private practice.

First of all, even when undergraduate students take courses in statistics, the courses are not likely to be very helpful. Many statistics textbooks used in colleges are poorly chosen

http://statland.org/MAAFIXED.PDF

and many statistics courses are taught by professors who themselves have very poor backgrounds in statistics, so the essential point that statistics is all about DATA never gets emphasized. Moreover, the undergraduate statistics curriculum historically has emphasized the wrong issues about valid inference

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6hb3k0nz

and most undergraduates who complete one or two statistics courses still have a very weak sense of what valid statistical inference is.

And all of this is not even to get into issues such as Bayesian versus frequentist approaches to statistics

http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes

in modeling reality. Yes, biologists need to get over fear of mathematics for biology to progress as a science,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/apr/16/mathematics-of-l...

and everyone can gain by learning more about statistics,

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=192...

but statistics education isn't easy, and it can still be greatly improved even for the students who do step up to take statistics courses.