flash on putty
Irish research suggests that hats can protect the scalp from sunlight (see feedback on July 13th), while German research suggests that if a putty is struck by lightning, it can protect your head from rain. It has been suggested that getting wet may perhaps help you survive.
The researchers chose not to experiment with a real wet human head and used a wet artificial head. Their report is “Rain may increase the chance of survival from a lightning strike that strikes a person directly in the head.''aims to “measure the effects of rain during a high-energy direct lightning strike on a realistic three-compartment human head phantom.”
René Machts and colleagues found that “there were fewer perforations and eroded areas near the impact point of a lightning strike in a head phantom during rain compared to when it was not raining.”
Is homeopathy back?
Peter Billard showed his son-in-law a portion of a feedback magazine that compiled what doctors had said about whether sometimes a doctor's job was to entertain patients while nature healed. My son-in-law works in a pediatric ward in Germany. He replied: “It's often easier and faster to prescribe something than to explain or argue why something isn't needed. This is definitely true for antibiotics, but for cough medicine The same is true.”
Billard's son-in-law mentioned some of the risks associated with taking antibiotics, including eventual antibiotic resistance and the possibility of diarrhea and other side effects, saying: Antibiotics. ”
Villard himself thinks so. When it was invented in the early 19th century, it was clearly a better alternative. At the time, there were no effective treatments that significantly improved upon conventional medicine. Maybe it's time for a comeback! ”
suspected of fraud
If you're honestly worried, wear your seatbelt and glasses and read this article.
Just eight days ago, Feedback commented on the difficulty of honestly evaluating research on fraud (Feedback, September 28). Marketing Research Journal (JMR) issued a “expression of concern” Regarding the article “The dishonesty of honest people”, which one JMR Published in 2008.
In this letter, written in succinct and not always easy to understand language, a large group of researchers examines the “honest man's fraud” paper and questions its accuracy and integrity. He explained that there was.
This big fuss is a showdown between award winners. Dan Ariely is the most prominent of several co-authors of the disputed 2008 paper. In the same year he received the award Ig Nobel Prize for study “We prove that expensive placebos are more effective than cheaper ones.”
The study criticizing Ariely's “fraudulent” work was carried out by an international group of researchers, two of whom, Bruno Verchulet and Laurent Beguet, are themselves Ig Nobel laureates. (Verschule won the award in 2016) study “Ask 1,000 liars how often they lie and decide whether to believe their answers.” Begg won the prize in 2013. study “Experiments confirm that people who think they are drunk also think they are attractive.”
Research feedback reported on September 28th (“Unreliable Evidence in Fraudulent Research”) was published by František Bartosz, who won the Ig Nobel Prize this year. study “Theoretically and through 350,757 experiments, it has been shown that when you toss a coin, it tends to land on the same side it started on.”
Bartos's “unreliable evidence” paper clearly questions the research Ariely did. One of those papers is a follow-up study from 2020; “Signing [one’s name] At the beginning [of an official report] However, in the end, fraud does not decrease.'' In a 2012 paper called “Signing first makes ethics more salient and reduces dishonest self-reporting compared to signing last.”
The top or bottom of Ariely's 2012 signature paper read: revoked Observers are speculating whether his paper, which was signed at the bottom or top in 2020, will be retracted in 2029.
This includes four Ig Nobel laureates and the three most recent questionable studies published by the oldest. The Ig Nobel Prize honors things that make people laugh and think. These standards say nothing about whether things are right or wrong, good or bad, important or trivial. Feedback has personally known all four Ig Nobel laureates and can honestly report that all four of them are thoughtful, engaging, and warm human beings. This tangle of four threads typifies the situation in the research community. It's messy, controversial, sometimes funny, sometimes disturbing, very thought-provoking, and very human.
Final item
Mark Abrahams has written a weekly feedback column for the past two years. This is his last feedback column. His other works and activities can be found at: Impossible.com.
Have a story for feedback?
You can email your article to Feedback at feedback@newscientist.com. Please enter your home address. This week's and past feedback can be found on our website.
Source: www.newscientist.com
