Before the panic over social media—but after the panic over “video nasties”—was the panic over violent videogames. Was Pac-Man causing little Johnny so much frustration that he’d take it out on his siblings with his fists? Was Doom secretly training little Timmy to be a school shooter?You don’t hear so much about videogames and violence any more, but if you look at the studies (and the critiques of those studies) there’s a lot to learn about where science can go wrong. In this episode of The Studies Show—in addition to, if we’re honest, just spending quite a lot of time talking about videogames—Tom and Stuart ask whether there’s any decent evidence that gaming can make people more aggressive.The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine—a journal of underrated ideas to make the world a better place. In the episode we discussed a recent essay on cruise ships, and the surprising (and continual) improvements over the years. You can find all their essays, all of which are free to read, at worksinprogress.co.Show notes* Horribly violent games of yore: Death Race, Postal, Postal 2, Carmageddon, Doom II, Quake* Newer games mentioned in the episode: Slay the Spire, Hades, Doom Eternal, Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Elden Ring* Hilarious attempt by an MP to ban Space Invaders in 1981* Chris Ferguson’s 2013 review of videogames and violence* 2003 review of “The Influence of Media Violence on Youth”* Pete Etchells’s 2019 book Lost in a Good Game* List of publications based on the Singapore dataset* Influential 2008 study by Chris Anderson showing a correlation between videogame violence exposure and violence* Small Ferguson study from 2012 controlling for several variables and finding no correlation* Study in the ALSPAC/Children of the 90s dataset* Are modern, more realistic games worse for us than older ones? Study from 2021* Use the CRTT to get whichever result you want* Psychological measures aren’t toothbrushes* Violent crime rates over time in the US, UK, various European countries, JapanCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe
--------
1:04:55
Paid-only Episode 16: Recycling
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.comIs recycling worthwhile? Is sending your rubbish to landfill actually so bad? Grab your cotton tote bag and join Tom and Stuart as they look at the evidence—and the intense political debate and even conspiracy theories—over the surprisingly controversial topic of recycling.This is a paid-only episode, and to hear the whole thing (and read the show notes), you’ll need to become a subscriber to The Studies Show. Find out how at www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe.
--------
11:17
Episode 61: Conflict of interest
We want scientists to be paragons of objectivity. At the very least, we want them to tell us who’s paying their bills. But it turns out that in some fields of research, the norms about reporting financial conflicts of interest are all over the place. Scientists making big money from after-dinner speeches about their research often don’t think it’s at all relevant to disclose.In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart look at the evidence on how funding affects the outcomes of scientific research—and discuss whether scientists need to be a lot more transparent about where their money comes from.Show notes* 2017 meta-analysis of the impact of funding source (for-profit vs. non-profit) on medical randomised trials* Tom’s Nature article on undisclosed financial conflicts in psychology research* New Angela Duckworth paper with no COI statement* Unconvincing ethics article on COI disclosures and public trust* Scientist declares his membership of the Scottish Socialist Party in an article about Margaret Thatcher* Ioannidis article on conflicts of interest in nutrition researchCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe
--------
1:07:21
Un-paywalled: Youth gender medicine & the Cass Review
This week, as a gift for New Year’s Eve, we’re opening up a previously-paywalled episode so that everyone can listen. It’s our episode from April 2024 on “Youth gender medicine & the Cass Review”. Since the show notes were previously behind the paywall, they’re copied below.If you’d like to listen to all our paywalled episodes—which are of course ad-free, like this one—you can subscribe by visiting thestudiesshowpod.com.Normal service will be resumed next week. Happy New Year!Show notes* The Cass Review’s final report* List of systematic reviews from University of York researchers that were commissioned by the Cass Review* Hannah Barnes on why the Tavistock gender identity clinic was forced to close* VICE interview with a Tavistock doctor, including information on patient numbers* Original Dutch single-case study on puberty blockers* Somewhat larger Dutch study of puberty blockers from 2011* The “Early Intervention” study from England (not published until 2021)* Article that’s critical of the “cis-supremacy” in the Cass Review* BMJ editorial on the Cass Review* Billy Bragg claims that the Cass Review only included 2 studies out of 102* Owen Jones’s video where he claims studies were “arbitrarily” excluded from the report* Fact-checking post from Benjamin Ryan, covering some of the criticisms of the Cass Report* Hilary Cass interviewed by The Times* Episode of BBC More or Less that addresses some of the criticisms* 2020 study on the small proportion of medical treatments where there’s strong evidence* More recent (2022) study by the same authors finding an even more depressing picture: “More than 9 in 10 healthcare interventions studied within recent Cochrane Reviews are not supported by high-quality evidence, and harms are under-reported”* The book Medical Nihilism* The BMJ review of the book, quoted in the episodeCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe
--------
1:15:24
Episode 60: Best and worst science of 2024
In this final episode of 2024, Tom and Stuart talk about the most exciting scientific breakthroughs of the year… but temper it with some of the worst episodes of scientific fraud and misconduct, too. Then, just as a bonus, they address some of the biggest errors made in episodes of The Studies Show in 2024, too.Thank you so much for listening in 2024. If you aren’t one already, please consider becoming a paid subscriber to support the podcast and get access to all the episodes. In any case, we’ll see you for more The Studies Show in the New Year!The Studies Show is sponsored by GiveWell, the non-profit aimed at making charitable donations as effective as possible. If you’re the kind of person who wants solid evidence that the money you donate is having an important effect on people’s lives, GiveWell is where you should be looking.You can get your donation matched up to $100 if you’re a first-time donor on GiveWell. Just go to the website (GiveWell.org), then click “Donate”. When you make your donation, say you heard about GiveWell on a podcast, and enter “The Studies Show” to let them know we sent you. Then you’ll see the donation matched. Show notes* Saloni Dattani’s “Five Medical Breakthroughs in 2024” post* Gavin Leech’s “Breakthroughs of 2024” thread on Twitter* Stuart’s monthly bad science newsletterCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe
UK