Effect of interpretive bias on research evidence
Facts do not accumulate on the blank slates of researchers’ minds and data simply do not speak for themselves. Good science inevitably embodies a tension between the empiricism of concrete data and the rationalism of deeply held convictions. Unbiased interpretation of data is as important as performing rigorous experiments. This evaluative process is never totally objective or completely independent of scientists’ convictions or theoretical apparatus.
Definitions of interpretation biases
Confirmation bias-evaluating evidence that supports one’s preconceptions differently from evidence that challenges these convictions
Rescue bias-discounting data by finding selective faults in the experiment
Auxiliary hypothesis bias-introducing ad hoc modifications to imply that an unanticipated finding would have been otherwise had the experimental conditions been different
Mechanism bias-being less sceptical when underlying science furnishes credibility for the data
“Time will tell” bias-the phenomenon that different scientists need different amounts of confirmatory evidence
Orientation bias-the possibility that the hypothesis itself introduces prejudices and errors and becomes a determinate of experimental outcomes
Kaptchuk TJ. Effect of interpretive bias on research evidence. BMJ. 2003 Jun 28;326(7404):1453-5. View Abstract View Full Paper
Related articles:
- Is docosahexaenoic acid, an n–3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid, required for development of normal brain function? An overview of evidence from cognitive and behavioural tests in humans and animals
- Is there convincing biological or behavioural evidence linking vitamin D deficiency to brain dysfunction?
- Clinical evidence for immunomodulatory effects of probiotic bacteria.
If you found this post interesting, please share it, leave a comment or subscribe to the RSS feed and get future posts delivered to your feed reader.
Leave Comment
You can ask technical questions, be as supportive, critical or controversial as you like, but please don't get personal or offensive, and do keep it brief. Your comments will be published only after verification.
The immune system is prone to the same grave misfortunes as any defense system handling weapons: collateral damage that comes with the destruction of the enemy on one’s own territory and friendly fire due to mistaken identity. Whereas the collateral damage is the price we pay for clearance of infections, autoimmunity is a pathological process. Nevertheless, the effector mechanisms involved in both processes are the same. Whether environment can be a cause, a trigger or an amplifier of an autoimmune disease are questions that are being intensively investigated.
