Comments on: In Defense of Beer-Drinking Scientists

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

It is equally clear to me that the lack of a strong correlation is caused by the 6 individuals who drink moderate amounts of beer but maintain high output. I suggest that you consider your justification for removing those 5 points over a strong cup of coffee.

By: buy online

buy online — Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

– most importantly: my half-joke-half-study was just a preliminary survey. Even just stating the logic of a hypothesis without any empirical data is worth publishing, see e.g. Moreno J, Osorno JL 2003: Avian egg colour and sexual selection: does eggshell pigmentation reflect female condition and genetic quality? ECOLOGY LETTERS 6: 803-806. Doing that is just a standard in ecology.

By: beerologist

beerologist — Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

After read the post and comments my conclusion is that I am dying for a beer right now!!!

By: Martin Hendrych

Martin Hendrych — Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I guess if the author performed a study at the Deparment of Optics at the same University, he would obtained exactly opposite correlations…

By: Tomas Grim

Tomas Grim — Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

From the drinking author of the drinking study

Hi Chris,
thanks for the advertisement:-) I just feel like noting that there are several misunderstandings in your comments:

- additionally to your confusion between R2 and correlation coefficients (see comments by others), the “magnitude of R2” issue is out of biological reality – I would be happy to reach R2 up to 0.52 (see Table 1) in my standard research papers (see also e.g. Moller and Jennions, Oecologia 2002, http://www.springerlink.com...)

- the correlation-causation - see Abstract "I predicted negative CORRELATIONS..." ("causes" or "causation" does not appear in my paper. I am not that stupid:-) See also what I explicitly said in New York Times: “More important, as Dr. Grim pointed out, the study documents a correlation between beer drinking and scientific performance without explaining why they are correlated. That leaves open the possibility that it is not beer drinking that causes poor scientific performance, but just the opposite.” Next time, read more carefully, please.

- the relationship is not maintained by the five "outliers" (by the way to exclude any data like you suggested is a clear scientific mis-conduct and should be penalized:-) The data in the Fig. 1 are transformed (read at least the caption of Fig. 1, please) so I have to ask ironically how do you know the SHAPE of the real relationship? The real spread of the data is from teetotallers to guys who drink hundreds of litres per year. The relationship is surprisingly strong all the way from the former to the latter, I can tell you. It is a pity I promised my respondents NOT to give away how much they drink (then you would see your naive mistake very clearly).

- most importantly: my half-joke-half-study was just a preliminary survey. Even just stating the logic of a hypothesis without any empirical data is worth publishing, see e.g. Moreno J, Osorno JL 2003: Avian egg colour and sexual selection: does eggshell pigmentation reflect female condition and genetic quality? ECOLOGY LETTERS 6: 803-806. Doing that is just a standard in ecology.

Cheers!:-)
Tom

By: Stan M

Stan M — Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

A generalized least squares model would help to take a possible lack of independence into account. Not sure if it would prove anything, but it would be interesting to at least see if the targeted population has a common drinking habit.

By: Jeff P

Jeff P — Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

All things in moderation I suppose. The data in the report could almost be a toxicology curve… notice that the "curve" doesnt seem to drop until they exceed 4L/yr… so it might be good to keep a running tally! Maybe those belt mounted bird counters should be co-opted to count pints.
Another unreported variable is the size and scope of the publications generated. He only cites number of citations but that doesnt always explain the amount of work that goes into each poublication or wether it was mostly grad student work that the PI esentially signed off on.
I love the part about publication rate affecting biological sucess!

By: Ron M

Ron M — Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Just reading this made me thirsty…

By: steven

steven — Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

simply ridiculious

By: wil

wil — Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

if any/all of you need a non-scientist, beer drinking control group, i’m in.