David and Philippe discussed what consequence a bad research might bring, and I
agree with them. It is an issue because bad research might possibly bring confusion
and might cause circulation of misinterpreted information among the audience. This
would be a greater issue because in my opinion, public health is important as it
involves the whole population and lives are at stake. Therefore, misleading
information could cause damages that could impossibly be repaired. An example of
this is given as a source in David’s and Philippe’s article [1]. It is a full report about
overlooked early warnings we have received on the hazards of human economic
activities and the lessons we learnt and will be learning in the future. Not only does it
possibly affect people’s lives, but I also think that it wastes plentiful time, effort and
funds while conducting the research. Instead of using the funds and labour for a
good and useful research, it will be spent on a research that can influence the
population negatively. Therefore, I think that this can slightly be resolved by ensuring
the quality of the research. There are numerous ways to improve the quality of a
research. Perhaps one should be examining and checking the evidence or sample to
make sure it is reliable. One can also seek facts or wider range of research that
challenge or expand the topic to cancel out the consequence of a questionable facts.
When I also read their point of view on what good and stable research should have, I
felt pleased as they did not just list the criteria for useful research, but they also
expanded the topic and included counterarguments as well. An example for this was
when David and Philippe addressed that the supposed truth might just be enough for
the research to be stable. It made sense to me at first however it also made me think
when they took a counter argument into account. They considered that some
research may be genuine but not beneficial and some research may not be correct
but very much useful. By doing this, they would have triggered the critical thinking of
the audience who have read the article. Personally, I was convinced that not all
research should be true to be considered as a good research. Having truth in your
research would be a great advantage since they would give clear answers to
unanswered question. However, in my opinion, it is still acceptable if the research
itself would somehow help fill the gaps in knowledge and have appropriate practical
use even if it lacks truthfulness since they would still contribute to the improvement
of policies and practices in general.
Overall, I was impressed and convinced by their assessment on how to consider a
good or bad research. It made me think the consequences of bad research might
have on our existence, also had me contemplating how to possibly prevent
conducting a considered bad research. It also made me ponder that it takes a
handful consideration to make good research, regarding its truthfulness over their
usefulness.
Source: https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-019-0556-5
