SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
About a month ago a study (abstract) was published about how a father's age affects the psychiatric health of his children. Due to a misleading press release about the study's results, it was widely reported that children born to father over 45 years of age were 3.5 times more likely to have autism, 13 times more likely to have ADHD, 2 times more likely to have a psychotic disorder, 25 times more likely to have bipolar disorder, and 2.5 times more likely to have suicidal behavior or a substance abuse problem.
But statistical analysis is hard and non-intuitive, particularly for people who aren't expert statisticians. It turns out that the real-life rates of psychiatric problems are significantly less, putting this most recent study's results in line with those of previous related studies.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by MrGuy on Tuesday April 08 2014, @05:28PM
The retraction matters not whit.
People are, simply put, not rational consumers of information. People heard the scary statistics. They remember the original story. That a few weeks later someone came along and said it was a mistake matters considerably less.
Plus, given the recent trend to "play up the controversy," at BEST this retraction means people will think the real risks are "somewhere in the middle" - maybe not as bad as originally reported, but more than we thought before. Be safe and incorporate "all the data" in your thinking (even if some of that data is provably incorrect).
Basically, all of humanity is now dumber and will make worse decisions going forward for years because this story was reported badly originally. The same way all pop pseudo-scientific studies make us all dumber and worse decision makers.
I truly wish "reckless disregard for the truth" was a punishable crime.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Blackmoore on Tuesday April 08 2014, @05:38PM
it is funny, the overall message i get out of this, is
1) I should not trust news sources about Science and Medicine,
2) News sources are more interested in Hype than Accuracy.
(Score: 2) by Zanothis on Tuesday April 08 2014, @05:48PM
FTFY
(Score: 1) by NeoNormal on Tuesday April 08 2014, @06:20PM
>> it is funny, the overall message i get out of this, is
>>
>> 1) I should not trust news sources because...
>> 2) News sources are more interested in Hype than Accuracy.
> FTFY
Absolutely correct.
The original story worried me a bit since I'm the father of a 22 year old that was born when I was 44... and a 26 year old that was born when I was 40. AFAICT, they're both fine.
(Score: 1) by sbgen on Tuesday April 08 2014, @06:24PM
Well put :-))
Warning: Not a computer expert, but got to use it. Yes, my kind does exist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 08 2014, @07:19PM
> 1) I should not trust news sources about Science and Medicine,
Note the source of the problem was the press release from the original researcher. He's the guy who started the hype. To me the bulk of the problem (in this particular case) lies with the original researcher for that bullshit. He should be censured, if he's happy to be misleading in a press release today, he's already crossed an ethical line that should put all of his actual research under a serious cloud of doubt because it is only a small matter of degree between careerist lying to manipulate a naive press and careerist lying in actual research.
(Score: 2) by hubie on Tuesday April 08 2014, @08:27PM
Many times the PR does not come directly from the researcher, but from the company or university public relations office.