Read the literature, beginner's edition
If you're looking at a scientific field where you really feel you need to know more about what's going on -- say you've discovered that your child has a rare disorder, or you simply want to have an educated opinion on a matter of the day -- this is a decent crash course on how to read and really understand scientific papers. Science reporting can be sketchy at best, downright misleading at worst, so being able to read the source material is invaluable. I skim papers regularly, and read them in depth on occasion, to make sure I know what I'm talking about. There is a learning curve, but as you get more familiar with the format, vocabulary, and the particular field, it really does get faster and easier.
The one thing I would add to this checklist is in the last step (which she lists as optional): check the citations. When I'm rummaging around in a controversial topic, such as the health effects of GMOs, I want to know which papers the researchers were focusing on for the basis of their own research. There are two reasons: one, you can quickly identify the signature papers that everyone is working from, and evaluate those yourself; two, if you've already evaluated the papers they cite, you can get a feel for agendas or sloppy thinking that they might be prey to. For GMO research, a big tell is when I look at their citations and find several papers by Seralini, who has been discredited up one side and down the other. Unless they're using him as a foil in an effort to set the record straight, I know they aren't concerned about rigorous science, and may share his agenda. I then read the paper very carefully.
I have an account as Torquill on Dreamwidth, and that's where I posted this. You can sign in with OpenID to comment on the original post, or you can go ahead and comment here; either way works.
The one thing I would add to this checklist is in the last step (which she lists as optional): check the citations. When I'm rummaging around in a controversial topic, such as the health effects of GMOs, I want to know which papers the researchers were focusing on for the basis of their own research. There are two reasons: one, you can quickly identify the signature papers that everyone is working from, and evaluate those yourself; two, if you've already evaluated the papers they cite, you can get a feel for agendas or sloppy thinking that they might be prey to. For GMO research, a big tell is when I look at their citations and find several papers by Seralini, who has been discredited up one side and down the other. Unless they're using him as a foil in an effort to set the record straight, I know they aren't concerned about rigorous science, and may share his agenda. I then read the paper very carefully.
I have an account as Torquill on Dreamwidth, and that's where I posted this. You can sign in with OpenID to comment on the original post, or you can go ahead and comment here; either way works.