Brian Wansink
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Annenberg Science Media Monitor – Report 3
ANNENBERG SCIENCE MEDIA MONITOR – REPORT 3 How the Media Frame News Stories About Retractions of Scientific Findings Introduction The third report of the Annenberg Science Media Monitor focuses on news coverage of three high- profile retracted scientific findings. Our analysis examines reporting on withdrawn research by four authors: Miguel Ángel Martínez González, whose paper, “Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease with a Mediterranean Diet,” was published in February 2013 in The New England Journal of Medicine; Oona Lönnstedt and Peter Eklöv, whose paper, “Environmentally relevant concentrations of microplastic particles influence larval fish ecology,” was published in June 2016 in Science; Brian Wansink, who has had a number of papers on human eating behavior retracted, including “Bad popcorn in big buckets: portion size can influence intake as much as taste,” published in September 2005 in The Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior. News pieces about retractions treat those due to unintended error differently than those withdrawn for malfeasance or fraud. Here we examine one of the former and two of the latter. Reports on the Lönnstedt-Eklöv study and on Wansink’s withdrawn work adopted the counterfeit quest narrative, while coverage of the Mediterranean diet attributed the retractions to researcher error rather than intentional deception. Articles covering retractions often employ the counterfeit quest narrative, in which storylines chronicle the activities of a deceptive researcher who has gulled custodians of knowledge, such as journal editors and peer reviewers. Our analysis shows that, in general, counterfeit quest narratives report the circumstances leading to retractions, how errors or misconduct were uncovered, and the individuals who identified the issues, but fail to explain how retractions are evidence of the self-corrective norm of science in action. -
Reproducibility and Replicability in Science (2019)
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25303 SHARE Reproducibility and Replicability in Science (2019) DETAILS 218 pages | 6 x 9 | PAPERBACK ISBN 978-0-309-48616-3 | DOI 10.17226/25303 CONTRIBUTORS GET THIS BOOK Committee on Reproducibility and Replicability in Science; Committee on National Statistics; Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Nuclear and Radiation Studies FIND RELATED TITLES Board; Division on Earth and Life Studies; Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics; Board on Mathematical Sciences and Analytics; Division on SUGGESTEDEngineering an CITATIONd Physical Sciences; Committee on Science, Engineering, Medicine, Nanadti oPnuabl lAicc Paodleicmyi;e Bso oafr Sd coienn Rcese, aErncghi nDeaetrain agn, da nIndf oMrmedaitcioinne; P20o1lic9y. Ranedp rGodloubcaibl ility aAnffda iRrse; pNliactaiobniliatyl Ainc aSdceiemnicees. oWf aSschieinngcteosn,, EDnCg:i nTeheer inNga,t iaonnda lM Aecdaidceinmeies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25303. Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get: – Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientific reports – 10% off the price of print titles – Email or social media notifications of new titles related to your interests – Special offers and discounts Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press. (Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this -
Pdf Washington : 2017
PROS AND CONS OF RESTRICTING SNAP PURCHASES HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION FEBRUARY 16, 2017 Serial No. 115–2 ( Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture agriculture.house.gov VerDate Aug 31 2005 09:46 May 17, 2017 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6011 Sfmt 6011 P:\DOCS\115-02\24325.TXT BRIAN PROS AND CONS OF RESTRICTING SNAP PURCHASES VerDate Aug 31 2005 09:46 May 17, 2017 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6019 Sfmt 6019 P:\DOCS\115-02\24325.TXT BRIAN PROS AND CONS OF RESTRICTING SNAP PURCHASES HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION FEBRUARY 16, 2017 Serial No. 115–2 ( Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture agriculture.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 24–325 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Aug 31 2005 09:46 May 17, 2017 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 P:\DOCS\115-02\24325.TXT BRIAN COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas, Chairman GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Ranking Vice Chairman Minority Member BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, DAVID SCOTT, Georgia FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma JIM COSTA, California STEVE KING, Iowa TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota MIKE ROGERS, Alabama MARCIA L. -
The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science David Randall & Christopher Welser the IRREPRODUCIBILITY CRISIS of MODERN SCIENCE
The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science THE IRREPRODUCIBILITY CRISIS OF MODERN SCIENCE Causes, Consequences, and the Road to Reform David Randall & Christopher Welser & Christopher Randall David DAVID RANDALL AND CHRISTOPHER WELSER NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOLARS APRIL 2018 ISBN: 978-0-9986635-5-5 THE IRREPRODUCIBILITY CRISIS OF MODERN SCIENCE Causes, Consequences, and the Road to Reform April 2018 DAVID RANDALL AND CHRISTOPHER WELSER © 2018 National Association of Scholars ISBN: 978-0-9986635-5-5 Cover image: Joseph Wright of Derby. An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump. Detail. 1768. National Gallery, London, UK./Wikipedia ABOUT THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOLARS Mission The National Association of Scholars is an independent membership association of academics and others working to sustain the tradition of reasoned scholarship and civil debate in America’s colleges and universities. We uphold the standards of a liberal arts education that fosters intellectual freedom, searches for the truth, and promotes virtuous citizenship. What We Do We publish a quarterly journal, Academic Questions, which examines the intellectual controversies and the institutional challenges of contemporary higher education. We publish studies of current higher education policy and practice with the aim of drawing attention to weaknesses and stimulating improvements. Our website presents a daily stream of educated opinion and commentary on higher education and archives our research reports for public access. NAS engages in public advocacy to pass legislation to advance the cause of higher education reform. We file friend-of-the-court briefs in legal cases, defending freedom of speech and conscience, and the civil rights of educators and students.