
healthNov 20, 20181:24:46pending
Episode 77: John Ioannidis discusses why most published research findings are false
Get every episode summarized
Each time STEM-Talk publishes, we email you a written briefing from the transcript — the topics, who appeared, and any specific claims, with the ad reads skipped.
Email me new episodesFree for 3 shows. No card needed.
About this episode
Our guest today is Dr. John Ioannidis, a Stanford professor who has been described by “BMJ” as “the scourge of sloppy science.” Atlantic magazine has gone so far as to refer to him as one of the world’s most influential scientists.
John is renowned for his 2005 paper, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” which has been viewed more than 2.5 million times and is the most citied article in the history of the journal PLoS Medicine. He has authored nearly a thousand academic papers and has served on the editorial board of 30 top-tier journals.
At Stanford, John is a professor of medicine, of health research and policy, and of biomedical data science in the school of medicine as well as a professor of statistics in the school of humanities and sciences. He is the co-director of the university’s Meta-Research Innovation Center and the former director of the Stanford Prevention Research Center.
In today’s wide-ranging interview, John talks about:
[00:07:43] What led him to begin questioning the reliability of medical research during his residency at Harvard.
[00:12:03] His 2005 paper, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.”
[00:26:27] How a major issue facing science is a lack of replication.
[00:30:51] Which studies are worse, nutritional studies or drug studies.
[00:38:25] If it’s possible to remove sampling biases like the healthy user bias.
[00:46:50] The need for scientists to disclose their personal dietary biases as well as their personal diets when publishing research findings.
[00:52:40] His recent paper, “Evidence Based Medicine Has Been Hijacked,” which argues that vested interests have transformed clinical medicine into something that resembles finance-based medicine.
[00:55:36] The impact that funding pressure is having on the veracity of research being done today.
[01:08:42] The need for future research to be designed by scientists without vested interests.
[01:14:58] The ways John would fix the system if he had magic wand.
[01:18:42] And as a bonus, John reads an excerpt from his latest book.
Get every episode summarized
Each time STEM-Talk publishes, we email you a written briefing from the transcript — the topics, who appeared, and any specific claims, with the ad reads skipped.
Email me new episodesFree for 3 shows. No card needed.
Hosts & guests
No transcript yet
This episode has not been transcribed. Request it and it moves to the front of the queue.
More episodes
More from STEM-Talk

Episode 198: Blessing or curse? Dawn grills Ken on listeners’ toughest AI quest...
STEM-Talk
Aug 12, 20261:39:07pending

Episode 197: Scott Sherr discusses hyperbaric oxygen therapy, methylene blue, an...
STEM-Talk
Jul 15, 20261:26:38pending

Episode 196: Dominic D’Agostino discusses advances in ketogenic metabolic therap...
STEM-Talk
Jun 11, 20261:10:47pending

Episode 195: Doug Cooke discusses NASA’s challenges in the space race to the Moo...
STEM-Talk
May 21, 202658:47pending