Research is one of the most effective and systematic efforts to validate the knowledge, assess the usefulness of current knowledge, and most importantly, generate and add new knowledge for the advancement of human civilization and welfare. The most important aspect of scientific research is the reproducibility or reliability of the findings, which means that if other researchers conduct research on the same subject(s) using the same experiment, tools, measurements, and procedures for data collection, organization, and analysis, the findings will always be consistent.
This standard distinguishes research from other types of inquiries. Another criterion is the research's validity, or whether it actually measures the variables it claims to be measuring using standardized units of measurement. Therefore, before criticizing a research, the critics must have thorough understanding of the research, methods and findings. Another parallel research can also be done before challenging the findings of a research. One should also carefully examine the strengths and limitations of the research mentioned by the researcher. In order to explore the shortcomings or strengths that are generally referred to as research gaps, a critic of a particular research finding should first read the entire research without being biased.
But the alarming and very upsetting matter is to see that when the research findings are not fulfilling the interest of a particular group of people or organization, they started questioning the researchers and research findings without having scientific knowledge about research. The strangest and most shocking thing is that they rarely read the original reports that are published in journals, preferring instead to read or hear the news that is reported by the media, which occasionally misinterprets or poorly defines some of the concepts from the original research.
For example, Bushra et al.’s (2022) research on "Human Health Implications of Trace Metal Contamination in Topsoils and Brinjal Fruits Harvested from a Famous Brinjal-Producing Area in Bangladesh" published in Scientific reports. The study found that Lead (Pb) and Cadmium (Cd) are 75% and 10% above permissible limits in the sampled Brinjals, respectively, when compared to the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme permissible limits of Pb (0.30 microgram) and Cd (0.05 microgram) per day in vegetables.
It concluded that this may be problematic for human health and lead to Thalassemia, Dermatitis, Brain and Kidney damage, and even cancer in humans if consumed over long time. This study has recently become the topic of discussion on the social media and national medias (TV, newspapers) because of the misinterpretation of the findings and for humiliating one of the researchers of that Article Dr. H.M. Zakir, Professor of Bangladesh Agricultural University in a live Talk show ‘Ekattor Journal’ of ‘Ekattor TV’ by the host and two discussants.
Although the research was related to soil quality, nutrition, and public health. Therefore, the research was crucial because Bangladesh are currently struggling to produce healthy food due to environmental degradation and an overuse of pesticides and artificial fertilizers on agricultural products. In this regard, the researcher may hope for appreciation and recognition for their efforts to shed light on a life-saving aspect of agricultural production.
But in that TV show, instead of inviting an expert researcher of the relevant field, the three media personalities evaluated and dissected the research and the researchers using their own common knowledge and motivations while overlooking the standard procedures for evaluating and criticizing the research work.
Firstly, it was clearly reflected that none of them read the original research paper that was published, apart from the news that was later reported in the media, because they didn't even know where it was published, let alone whether it had already been published in a journal or not.
Secondly, it seems that they were unconcerned how researchers chose and ultimately decided on the research subjects (Brinjal) and samples, as one of the discussion participants questioned why the researchers had not conducted their studies on the sponge gourd (Zinga), even though they were aware that the research was funded for studying ‘Brinjal’ by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Bangladesh.
Thirdly, they asked why they made the result public that will stop people to consume Brinjal and will accrue loss to the Brinjal farmers, but they did not realize the necessity of this findings from public health perspectives to save the people from taking toxic Brinjals and training needs for safe agricultural practices for human well-being.
Fourthly, we did not find any research gaps they could identify in the method, procedure and analysis process that are more important to evaluate the research being published.
Fifth, one of the panelists had very little knowledge of the researchers' journal of publication (Scientific Reports), as well as the name and reputation of the publisher (Springer Nature). Last but not the least, it appears that they just disregard the researchers and the research findings because they used ‘Tannery and Poultry Feed’ research as example without understanding the value of research to human health and well being from the utilitarian and long-term beneficial perspectives.
Since research is significantly more complex, scientific, and advanced than common knowledge, please be polite and fair to the scientists while reviewing and evaluating their findings along with professional judgment and sufficient justification. Researchers should be credited and acknowledged after reviewing and evaluating their methods and techniques properly. Hence, criticisms and questions would then be helpful to rectify, modify, or refine the research findings if needed, proving research is an iterative process or cyclic in nature. The results of earlier studies aid in the development of new research questions, and evidence-based policy making ensures that every study has value and demand if it is carried out professionally.
Prior research's shortcomings or gaps serve as a springboard for subsequent researchers' efforts, so rather than criticizing or fearing them to be held, these efforts should be supported, rewarded, and acknowledged. Many international organizations have awarded our researchers with accreditation, recognition, and adorations, so what is wrong with us if we applaud and hail them as the saviors of humanity or constructively criticize them if their work is sound science?
Writers:
1. Md Hasan Howlader, PhD Researcher, Lingnan University, Hong Kong & Associate Professor, Development Studies Discipline, Khulna University, Bangladesh. Email: [email protected]
2. Rasel Hussain, PhD Researcher, Lingnan University, Hong Kong & Senior Lecturer, Department of Sociology, East West University, Bangladesh. Email: [email protected]
END/TDM/EHM
