I love reading a careful, counterintuitive study. But it requires a certain degree of wariness. Unlike what the more conspiratorially-minded suggest, incentive structures in scientific publishing favor novelty over conformity. Provocative observations ultimately require replication in different contexts. If you see the same couple of papers trotted out over and over again to support a bold claim, watch out. Rarely will one or two studies end a debate.
On that note, here are some recent scientific provocations:
“Strikingly, the resumption of respiratory viral circulation during the last two years has been accompanied by an increase in incidence among older children, an outcome that has been predicted theoretically but has not been shown with empirical data elsewhere. The predicted increase in incidence among older children is due to the build-up of susceptible individuals who were less likely to get infected earlier in childhood due to very low circulation of the disease in the past two years.” (OFID 2022)
“Boosters reduced infection and severe COVID-19, particularly among those clinically vulnerable to severe COVID-19. However, protection against infection waned after the booster, and eventually suggested an imprinting effect of compromised protection relative to the primary series. However, imprinting effects are unlikely to negate the overall public health value of booster vaccinations.” (Preprint 2022, with Jeremy Faust of
)“A study based on all children in Denmark does not show any association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and subsequent risk of Type 1 diabetes among persons < 18 years. Type 1 diabetes should not be a special focus after a SARS-CoV-2 infection in children.” (Preprint 2022)
“Compared to physicians, NPs significantly increase resource utilization but achieve worse patient outcomes.” (NBER 2022)
“Increased iron content in nigrostriatal neurons has been implicated in the pathophysiology of Parkinson’s disease”…and yet “to the contrary, [iron chelation therapy] was associated with worsening of motor and nonmotor symptoms.” (NEJM 2022) — This is why we need clinical trials. What works in models can harm in humans.
Lighthearted provocations…
Bill visits the lab. Another perfect pathology parody by Dr. Glaucomflecken.
This quote from “The Ideas Industry,” a 2017 book on the place of public intellectuals and thought leaders in modern society by
“My academic colleagues occasionally tell me that I am a good writer. To normal people this sounds like praise; because of my socialization as an academic, however, I will always interpret it as a backhanded compliment. If one is known for being a good writer, the subtle signal is that the presentation is better than the ideas—and it is the ideas that animate the professoriate.”