TORONTO –A recent report issued from the faculty of observational studies at York University has concluded that, for the most part, some studies aren’t worth the paper they are written on, or the server space they are stored on.
Roald Goertsan, a third-year student in general studies, explained that what he had learned after three years was that the “results” of observational studies could be highly misleading.
In a particular multi-year study, funded by the Orange Growers Association (OGA) of Ocala, Florida, eleven test subjects were observed drinking orange juice poured from three different containers, and then were asked to choose which one of the three they preferred.
The results of the latest year’s study showed that ten of the subjects chose the juice from container B, one chose the juice from container C and none preferred the juice from container A. When the observations were collated the results seemed to show that the orange juice from container B was a clear favourite with the test group. This delighted the OGA, which guaranteed another tranche of funding again for the next fiscal year.
Goertsan claimed however that although the official results showed that the test subjects had preferred the container B orange juice, there had been behind-the-scenes jiggery pokery. Eight of the tasters had been surreptitiously paid to “prefer” the juice in container B.
“So we did an in-depth study of them. I went back and looked at the results from previous years,” he said. And they were all slanted in the same way toward one orange juice company. It turns out that the owner of the company is the brother-in-law of the OGA’s president.
“It’s a depressing state of affairs,” he said. These observational studies are really just all about the money.” Source: FNT Staff
Photo credit: Original images at: SlidePlayer