12/08/2026
🔬 What happens when new research contradicts the old research?
A long, long time ago, I started reading scientific research.
And, like a good little lemming, I believed it. 😂
If a paper appeared in a respected journal and was written by somebody with seventeen letters after their name, I assumed it must be true.
Then another study would contradict it.
And another would challenge that one.
This doesn’t necessarily mean the original research was bad—it’s often simply the journey science takes.
A small study raises a possibility. Larger studies test it, find its weaknesses and gradually move us closer to the truth.
My favourite example was the research suggesting that drinking wine every day was good for your heart.
I may have personally translated “a small glass” into “a bottle,” but that was my own interpretation… 🍷😂
Many apparent benefits came from observational studies. Moderate drinkers often differed from non-drinkers in other important ways, while some “non-drinkers” were former drinkers who had stopped because of poor health.
A major trial was later planned to investigate whether moderate drinking prevented cardiovascular disease—with much of its funding due to come from alcohol companies.
The US National Institutes of Health eventually stopped it following concerns about its funding process and design.
That doesn’t mean every industry-funded study is false, but it demonstrates why we should ask:
“Who funded this research?”
It also reminded me how many things I was taught as fact that were later challenged:
🧠 MMR causes autism
Andrew Wakefield’s 12-child paper was retracted after serious ethical, financial and data concerns emerged. The BMJ described it as fraudulent.
👨⚕️ The Stanford Prison Experiment proved ordinary people naturally become cruel
Later examination revealed that some guards had been coached and the behaviour wasn’t as spontaneous as we were taught.
🍬 The marshmallow test predicted a child’s future
Larger studies found that family background, socioeconomic circumstances and trust explained much of the apparent effect.
📚 Children have individual learning styles
The idea became embedded in education, yet matching teaching to a supposed learning style hasn’t reliably been shown to improve learning.
⚡ Power posing changes your hormones
Standing like Superman was claimed to increase testosterone and reduce cortisol, but larger studies struggled to reproduce those headline effects.
🪫 Willpower is a battery that runs out
The theory of “ego depletion” influenced psychology, dieting and productivity advice, but large replication projects struggled to reproduce it consistently.
🧬 Scientists had created cloned human embryonic stem cells
Hwang Woo-suk became an international celebrity before key results were found to have been fabricated and the papers retracted.
🦠 An enormous hospital database proved certain COVID treatments were dangerous
When researchers questioned whether Surgisphere’s database existed as described, the underlying data couldn’t be independently examined and major papers were retracted.
The lesson isn’t that science cannot be trusted.
It’s almost the opposite.
Science exposes its own mistakes because people inspect the data, question conclusions and attempt to reproduce results.
But remember:
✅ Famous journals can publish flawed papers.
✅ Peer review isn’t a guarantee of truth.
✅ Confident experts can be confidently wrong.
✅ One exciting study is never the final word.
Good scientists remain willing to change their minds when better evidence arrives.
Remain curious.
Ask awkward questions.
And never confuse a dramatic headline with unquestionable truth.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have some extremely important wine-based research to continue…
Strictly observational, obviously. 🍷😂
Further reading: NIH statement on the alcohol trial | The BMJ investigation into Wakefield’s paper
