Articles from scientific magazines are often misleading

There are many scientific publications online and quite a few of you read them from time to time. Many articles with claims starting “according to a new study”, but not always mentioning the study. Here is a breakdown why it can be dangerous to simply read an article about a study without reading the study itself:

It may be tideous to read through an entire study, and you may have to look up a few words and read the study again in order not to miss any part of its context. But it beats knowing what is rather than what someone else believes it tells you. Or whatever someone else uses to make a good headline.

Remember the article a few years ago about the Neanderthals having been cannibals?

If you’ve read the actual study, you would know that there was one thing it all was based on:

They have found Neanderthal bones with bite marks.

That was it.

Years later, it was revealed that according to deeper forensic testing, those bite markes couldn’t have come from a Neanderthal. They were however consistent with those of early humans, but could have also stemmed from animals. In other words:

Neanderthal bones were found with bite marks that didn’t come from other Neanderthals.

When reading a study, you usually find a “Discussion” section in which the authors may add some thoughts. The reason being: You cannot get a study, no matter how proven or significant, into a medical or scientific journal, without explaining to some extent the reasons for what you have just found out. I am aware of a completed study for example which is the first of its kind regarding rhesus negative people and would be revolutionary if published. But there is no explanation the editors of scientific publications consider logical, so it isn’t being admitted. This is how it works. Of course, interested scientists won’t stop there and much rather work on finding explanations. But until found, significant findings won’t become mainstream.

Interested scientists may glance at the “Discussions” section to see whether or not something stands out that could lead them to conduct a new study, but usually dismiss it as what it mostly is: Just thoughts.

Authors hired by scientific magazines tend to be drawn to the “Discussions” section however almost immediately in search for a good headline. It is the section where scientists write down several possibilities for their findings in hope at least one will satisfy the editors enough to add their study to the journal. Authors pick the ones with the right headlines to attract more readers and are covered as it technically is “according to a new study”.