The Studies Show

Tom Chivers and Stuart Ritchie
  • 4.8 (73)
  • SCIENCE
  • UPDATED WEEKLY
The Studies Show Podcast

A weekly podcast about the latest scientific controversies, with Tom Chivers and Stuart Ritchie www.thestudiesshowpod.com

  1. 3 DAYS AGO

    Episode 49: Scientific publishing

    It’s in a peer-reviewed paper, so it must be true. Right? Alas, you can only really hold this belief if you don’t know about the peer-review system, and scientific publishing more generally. That’s why, in this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart break down the traditional scientific publishing process, discuss how it leads science astray, and talk about the ways in which, if we really cared, we could make it better. The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine. Their new September 2024 issue is out now, and is brimming with fascinating articles including one on lab-grown diamonds, one on genetically-engineered mosquitoes, and one on the evolution of drip coffee. Check it out at worksinprogress.co. Show Notes * A history of Philosophical Transactions, the oldest scientific journal * Hooke (1665) on “A Spot in One of the Belts of Jupiter” * The original paper proposing the h-index * Useful 2017 paper on perverse incentives and hypercompetition in science * Goodhart’s Law * Bad behaviour by scientists: * What is a “predatory journal”? * Science investigates paper mills and their bribery tactics * The best example yet seen of salami slicing * Brief discussion of citation manipulation * Elisabeth Bik on citation rings * The recent discovery of sneaked citations, hidden in the metadata of a paper * The Spanish scientist who claims to publish a scientific paper every two days * Science report on the fake anemone paper that the journal didn’t want to retract * Transcript of Ronald Fisher’s 1938 lecture in which he said his famous line about statisticians only being able to offer a post-mortem * 2017 Guardian article about the strange and highly profitable world of scientific publishing * Brian Nosek’s 2012 “scientific utopia” paper * Stuart’s 2022 Guardian article on how we could do away with scientific papers altogether * The new Octopus platform for publishing scientific resaerch * Roger Giner-Sorolla’s article on “aesthetic standards” in scientific publishing and how they damage science * The Transparency and Openness Practices guidelines that journals can be rated on * Registered Reports - a description, and a further discussion from Chris Chambers * 2021 paper showing fewer positive results in Registered Reports compared with standard scientific publication Credits The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

    1h 16m

  2. 3 SEPT

    Episode 48: Alcohol

    Okay, it’s time to finally answer the question: is drinking booze good or bad? Is there really a “J-curve”, such that it’s bad to drink zero alcohol, good to drink a little, and then bad to drink any more than that? What exactly is the “safe level” of alcohol consumption, and why do the meta-analyses on this topic all seem to tell us entirely different things? In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart get very badly intoxicated—with statistics. We’re sponsored by Works in Progress magazine. There’s no better place online to find essays on the topic of “Progress Studies”—the new field that digs deep into the data on how scientific and technological advances were made in the past, and tries to learn the lessons for the future. Check them out at worksinprogress.co. Show notes * Media reports say alcohol is good! Oh no wait, it’s bad. Oh, sorry, it’s actually good! No, wait, actually bad. And so on, ad infinitum * The three conflicting meta-analyses: * 2018 in The Lancet (“no safe level”) * 2022 in The Lancet (the J-curve returns) * 2023 in JAMA Network Open (using “occasional drinkers” as the comparison) * Some of the press coverage about the J-curve age differences * David Spiegelhalter’s piece comparing the two Lancet meta-analyses * Tom’s piece on the idea of “safe drinking” Credits The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. We’re very grateful to Sir David Spiegelhalter for talking to us about this episode (as ever, any errors are ours alone). This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

    55 min

  3. 27 AUG

    Episode 47: The 25 year old brain

    Everyone knows your brain hasn’t finished maturing until you’re 25. That’s so well-known, in fact, that some countries (like Scotland) have built it into their criminal justice system, giving lower sentences to under-25s—even very violent ones—on account of their immature brains. But in this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart discuss what the evidence really says about when the brain matures—and the trickiness of linking important policy decisions to the science. The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine, who don’t just have their magazine (at worksinprogress.co), but also have a Substack with a range of extra articles. It’s all thoughtful, thought-provoking stuff—and its all free. Find it at worksinprogress.news. Show notes * The three Scottish criminal cases: * “Golf club thug spared jail over age” * Community service not jail for rape (and the conviction later quashed) * 3 year-jail sentence for rape * The Scottish Sentencing Council guidelines from 2022 * The commissioned review by University of Edinburgh on brain maturation * Useful 2022 Nature paper on structural “brain charts for the human lifespan” * 2024 preprint on the lifespan trajectory of functional brain activation for cognitive control * 2023 paper with 10,000 people aged 8-35 measured on executive function tests * BBC Science Focus article by Dean Burnett on the “brain matures at age 25” idea * “The myth of the 25-year-old brain” in Slate * Stuart’s i article from last year on the Scottish Sentencing Council Credits The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

    1h 4m

  4. 20 AUG

    Paid-only Episode 11: Sex education

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com Did your schoolteacher also do the thing with the banana and the condom? It might’ve been cringe and awkward, but just ask the experts: the evidence is “clear and compelling” that sex education classes reduce the likelihood of teenage pregnancy, the transmission of STIs, and even the prevalence of sexual abuse. In this paid-subscriber-only episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart ask the inevitable question: how “clear and compelling” are we talking, here? Those experts wouldn’t exaggerate the strength of the evidence for something like this… would they?

    11 min

  5. 13 AUG

    Episode 46: The marshmallow test

    It’s one of the best-known findings of psychology research: kids who can delay gratification by not eating a marshmallow will grow up healther, wiser, and more successful. But guess what? Later studies had trouble finding the same results. What do we actually know about delaying gratification? Get ready to control yourselves, because in this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart tell the story of yet another famous psychological study that turned out not to live up to the hype. The Studies Show is sponsored by Works in Progress magazine. If you’re looking for thoughtful essays on areas of policy, science, and technology that you might not have considered previously, there’s no better place. Check it out at worksinprogress.co. Show notes * The famous 1988 paper by Walter Mischel and colleagues on predicting teenage outcomes from childhood marshmallow test performance, and the famous 1990 one (including the SAT predictions) * And the much older research that this follows up * Walter Mischel’s 2014 book The Marshmallow Test * Publicity piece on the book in Vox * First proper replication study from 2018 * Debate about how the study used covariates * Really good Vox article describing the replication * 2021 paper (co-authored by Mischel) following up on the original participants * New 2024 paper following up on the replication study * Heavily-cited 2011 paper from the Dunedin study on the predictive power of self-control measures * Inzlicht and Roberts (2024) on trait vs. state self-control, and why we might have been thinking about this the wrong way Credits The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

    1h 13m

  6. 6 AUG

    First anniversary special

    We’ve now been making this podcast for a year(!). We thought we’d mark the occasion with a grossly self-indulgent look back through our favourite episodes - and our least favourites, too. We’ve still got a massive list of potential episode topics, but we always want more. Which topics would you like us to look into? Comments below are open to all. Thanks for listening. And remember: if you like The Studies Show, please tell a friend about it! Show notes * Study showing consistent results from multiple cognitive test batteries * Lucy Foulkes’s paper on the “prevalence inflation hypothesis” * Semaglutide and quitting smoking Credits The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

    1h 10m

  7. 30 JUL

    Episode 45: Air pollution

    Remember when they were coming to take your gas stove away? Every so often a study about the effects of air pollution on health goes viral, and we’re reminded again that seemingly innocuous objects—like your kitchen cooker—could be bad for us in unexpected ways. How bad is air pollution? And is it getting any better? In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart look into the science of air pollution, trying to separate correlation from causality, and working out what scientists mean when they say that deaths are “attributable” to something (it’s more complicated than you think!). The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine. We usually mention their long-form pieces at worksinprogress.co, but they also have a Substack newsletter at worksinprogress.news with shorter articles on the same topics. We commend it to you, and thank Works in Progress for sponsoring the podcast. Show notes * Recent news about “Ella’s Law” in the UK * Tom’s 2019 Unherd article on air pollution * “Death risk from London's toxic air sees ‘utterly horrifying’ rise for second year running” * The Our World In Data “Deaths by Risk Factor” graph * 2024 BMJ Open article about the health risks of coal power stations * Dynomight’s long article on air quality * The 1952 “Great Smog of London” * More useful Our World In Data articles: * An explainer on “attributable fractions” and summing up multiple risk factors * On indoor air pollution * Deaths from outdoor pollution * Death rate from outdoor pollution * Deaths from outdoor pollution vs. GDP per capita * The WHO calls indoor air pollution “the world’s single largest environmental health risk” * More on attributable fractions, with some examples * Example of an experimental study on the effects of air pollution * The article that sparked the Great Cooker Controversy of 2023 * Example of the media coverage at the time * Biden forced to rule out a ban on gas cookers * Recent story on how there’s “no safe level” of PM2.5 * Based on this 2024 paper in the BMJ * How policy interventions can reduce (and have reduced) air pollution * London report on the effect of ULEZ Credits The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

    1h 5m

  8. 23 JUL

    Paid-only Episode 10: Misinformation, debunked

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com We all agree that misinformation is bad. So why do we cringe when we hear prominent scientists and commentators talking about “misinformation” these days? It’s because the public discussion on misinformation bears very little relation to what we actually know about it and its effects. Ironically, some scientists—misinformation researchers who should know better—are at the root of this confusion. In this epic-length, paid-subscriber-only episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart take “misinformation” researchers to task for spreading, er, misinformation. Warning: contains strong and intemperate—but very justified—language.

    11 min
See All (65)

4.8
out of 5
73 Ratings

About

A weekly podcast about the latest scientific controversies, with Tom Chivers and Stuart Ritchie www.thestudiesshowpod.com

Information

  • Creator
    Tom Chivers and Stuart Ritchie
  • Years Active
    2023 - 2024
  • Episodes
    65
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © Tom Chivers and Stuart Ritchie
  • Show Website
    The Studies Show

You Might Also Like

To listen to explicit episodes, sign in.

Stay up to date with this show

Sign in or sign up to follow shows, save episodes and get the latest updates.
Select a country or region

Africa, Middle East, and India

Asia Pacific

Europe

Latin America and the Caribbean

The United States and Canada