Thank you for taking down the statistical meddling in the fetal alcohol study. As an AI researcher in the social sciences, I'll note that I also found their use of a (as far as I could tell) previously unvalidated AI algorithm to make these judgments extremely problematic as well. When based entirely on photographs with no additional information about FAS symptoms among this population of children, this AI can only possibly be as good as the researchers who trained it at recognizing so-called facial characteristics of FAS. Masking this fact by pretending the algorithm is uncovering something that humans did not train it to see in the first place is an excellent example of why we need to be extremely wary of uncritical technological solutionism.
All in all, as a fellow researcher, I am mildly disgusted that these authors chose to add their voices to the existing medical paternalism around alcohol and pregnancy. They could have presented this study more honestly for what it was: an interesting pilot for a technology that may help recognize cases of FAS that might otherwise go undiagnosed, in the context of other symptoms, but that pretty clearly shouldn't be used on its own to diagnose FAS.
I sometimes wonder if the way we teach scientific and intellectual history (“Everyone thought a certain way. Such and such a genius said something different and was widely persecuted/ridiculed. The lone dissenter turned out to be correct. How foolish the scientific/intellectual community was then, unlike us enlightened folk.”) has something to do with exactly how bad the general public is with scientific and media literacy. People are primed to think that every ill-conceived, fringe view, widely rejected by the scientific community is the work of the next Galileo. It’s almost like the more maligned the idea is, the more likely they are to think the person behind it is a misunderstood genius or being actively suppressed for speaking “the truth.” Is trying to teach looking for authoritative sources or scholarly consensus counterproductive when what makes these ideas so appealing to a subset of people that they *are* controversial? What tools do we have for teaching people to sort out the novel from the “horseshit?”
From the perspective of an applied scientist --Who funds these studies? Is someone just trying to throw projects at grad students or increase their number of publications? I realize this comment may sound like a troll but it just seems like the only outcome of these studies is to make people feel bad. Also, I didn't know I'm supposed to be concerned about a child's face shape? Like what is someone supposed to do with that information, even if it were actually statistically significant?
It's amazing how many studies do that with the p value and fail to comment on it in the discussion? Is it because it's just so obvious to the research team (reviewers and journal editors) or because all of involved parties are motivated to publish "significant" results?
Thank you for taking down the statistical meddling in the fetal alcohol study. As an AI researcher in the social sciences, I'll note that I also found their use of a (as far as I could tell) previously unvalidated AI algorithm to make these judgments extremely problematic as well. When based entirely on photographs with no additional information about FAS symptoms among this population of children, this AI can only possibly be as good as the researchers who trained it at recognizing so-called facial characteristics of FAS. Masking this fact by pretending the algorithm is uncovering something that humans did not train it to see in the first place is an excellent example of why we need to be extremely wary of uncritical technological solutionism.
All in all, as a fellow researcher, I am mildly disgusted that these authors chose to add their voices to the existing medical paternalism around alcohol and pregnancy. They could have presented this study more honestly for what it was: an interesting pilot for a technology that may help recognize cases of FAS that might otherwise go undiagnosed, in the context of other symptoms, but that pretty clearly shouldn't be used on its own to diagnose FAS.
I sometimes wonder if the way we teach scientific and intellectual history (“Everyone thought a certain way. Such and such a genius said something different and was widely persecuted/ridiculed. The lone dissenter turned out to be correct. How foolish the scientific/intellectual community was then, unlike us enlightened folk.”) has something to do with exactly how bad the general public is with scientific and media literacy. People are primed to think that every ill-conceived, fringe view, widely rejected by the scientific community is the work of the next Galileo. It’s almost like the more maligned the idea is, the more likely they are to think the person behind it is a misunderstood genius or being actively suppressed for speaking “the truth.” Is trying to teach looking for authoritative sources or scholarly consensus counterproductive when what makes these ideas so appealing to a subset of people that they *are* controversial? What tools do we have for teaching people to sort out the novel from the “horseshit?”
"If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything."
From the perspective of an applied scientist --Who funds these studies? Is someone just trying to throw projects at grad students or increase their number of publications? I realize this comment may sound like a troll but it just seems like the only outcome of these studies is to make people feel bad. Also, I didn't know I'm supposed to be concerned about a child's face shape? Like what is someone supposed to do with that information, even if it were actually statistically significant?
It's amazing how many studies do that with the p value and fail to comment on it in the discussion? Is it because it's just so obvious to the research team (reviewers and journal editors) or because all of involved parties are motivated to publish "significant" results?
This type of piece is why I love ParentData. It makes me a calmer, wiser parent, and I feel like I got a little smarter reading it. Thank you Emily!
Thank you, great breakdown of the problems. Amazing these studies get published in the first place. We’re lucky to have you!