I’ve been rather bearish on candidate gene studies of human behavior (e.g., “hug gene” or “violence gene”) since 2007. The reason being the influence of friends who warned me that a lot of false positive results were being published because they could be published. Basically you might have one group publish on a plausible candidate gene, and other groups would follow up and publish only when p < 0.05, neglecting all the null results.
I'm a believer that much of variation in behavior has a biological basis in terms of variation in genes. But I’m a believer in robust and replicable science which I have faith in. With that, Is there a publication bias in behavioral intranasal oxytocin research on humans? Opening the file drawer of one lab:
The neurohormone oxytocin (OT) has been one the most studied peptides in behavioral sciences over the past two decades. Primarily known for its crucial role in labor and lactation, a rapidly growing literature suggests that intranasal OT (IN-OT) may also play a role in humans’ emotional and social lives. However, the lack of a convincing theoretical framework explaining IN-OT’s effects that would also allow to predict which moderators exert their effects and when, has raised healthy skepticism regarding the robustness of human behavioral IN-OT research. The poor knowledge of OT’s exact pharmacokinetic properties, crucial statistical and methodological issues and the absence of direct replication efforts may have lead to a publication bias in IN-OT literature with many unpublished studies with null results lying in laboratories’ drawers. Is there a file drawer problem in IN-OT research? If this is the case, it may also be the case in our laboratory. This paper aims to answer that question, document the extent of the problem and discuss its implications for OT research. Through eight studies (including 13 dependent variables overall, assessed through 25 different paradigms) performed in our lab between 2009 and 2014 on 453 subjects, results were too often not those expected. Only five publications emerged from our studies and only one of these reported a null-finding. After realizing that our publication portfolio has become less and less representative of our actual findings and because the non-publication of our data might contribute to generating a publication bias in IN-OT research, we decided to get these studies out of our drawer and encourage other laboratories to do the same.
Comments are closed.