![Walking amongst the trees in a dark autumn night.](https://i0.wp.com/luis.apiolaza.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/walking-amongst-trees.jpg?resize=676%2C507&ssl=1)
![](https://i0.wp.com/luis.apiolaza.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/walking-amongst-trees.jpg?fit=676%2C507&ssl=1)
Evolving notes, images and sounds by Luis Apiolaza
Following my post on GM-fed pigs I received several comments, mostly through Twitter. Some people liked having access to an alternative analysis, while others replied with typical anti-GM slogans, completely ignoring that I was posting about the technical side of the paper. This post is not for the slogan crowd (who clearly are not interested in understanding), but for people that would like to know more about how one would evaluate claims from a scientific article. While I refer to the pig paper, most issues apply to any paper that uses statistics.
In general, researchers want to isolate the effect of the treatments under study (diets in this case) from any other extraneous influence. We want control over the experimental conditions, so we can separate the effects of interest from all other issues that could create differences between our experimental units (pigs in this case). What could create ‘noise’ in our results? Animals could have different genetic backgrounds (for example with different parents), they could be exposed to different environmental conditions, they could be treated differently (more kindly or harshly), etc.
Continue readingThis week another ‘scary GMO cause disease’ story was doing the rounds in internet: A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet. Andrew Kniss, a non-smokable weeds expert, mentioned in Twitter that the statistical analyses in the study appeared to be kind of dodgy.
Curious, I decided to have a quick look and I was surprised, first, by the points the authors decide to highlight in their results, second, by the pictures and captioning used in the article and, last, by the way of running the analysis. As I’m in the middle of marking assignments and exams I’ll only have a quick go at part of the analysis. As I see it, the problem can be described as ‘there is a bunch of pigs who were fed either non-GM feed or GM feed. After some time (approximately 23 weeks) they were killed and went through a CSI-like autopsy’, where part of the exam involved the following process:
Continue readingA list of interesting R/Stats quickies to keep the mind distracted:
I’m marking too many assignments right now to have enough time to write something more substantial. I can see the light at the end of the tunnel though.
© 2024 Palimpsest
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑