Stakeholder #1

       In every story there are those that hold stakes by the information they are giving, and the stakes may be their own merit or credibility within their field of study or something more like monetary compensation or something. An important stake holder within this controversy is John P.A. Ioannidis, a Professor in many departments and Head of many other departments at Stanford University.

Limitsios, Kostas. "John P.A. Ioannidis- Mediocracy vs. Meritocracy"
09/26/2015 via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic

Who is He?
       John P.A. Ioannidis, professor and researcher; the balding man of fifty perhaps would not be the most eye catching in a crowd, with his quite average stature; perhaps the more olive tone of his skin from his Greek heritage would catch the eye, or the moustache occupying his upper lip between a smile and a prominent nose, or the laugh lines around his dark eyes. But just from observation it is unlikely that one could know that they were observing a renowned, heavily honored and respected professor of Stanford University.  That is until you were able to sit in on a lecture or talk by the man; to observe him standing at the front of a lecture hall with an earnest expression upon his brow, his shirt tucked in and his arms gesticulating as he talks about the faults in research and lack of reproducibility of results. Through his speech it would be obvious to the extent of study and research that the man has conducted throughout the years. Speaking with slightly rounded shoulders, a reedy voice and an accent typical to having primarily spoken Greek, his movements seem nervous and yet he aspires to make his audience laugh with a grin upon his face. He projects a sort of reliability and an attitude that one would want to approach him for help.
     
What is He Claiming?
       The three main claims by Ioannidis include that most current published research are false; "it can be proven that most claimed research findings are false" he reports before going on through the rest of the paper to explain this point, this is his very main claim. Another claim he makes, about biases, is that "the greater the number and the lesser the selection of tested relationships in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true", this claim has to do with how statistics from research are still mostly based upon their proposed statistics. A third claim he makes within his paper is that for statistical powers to begin to get fixed there needs to be less emphasis on one teams finding as "what matters is the totality of the evidence" and not a bias to a certain work.

Proof of Validity
     His claims are valid, he has sources from which he sources where the explanations come from and from where he got the ideas and confirmation of what he had been researching. Since his main work is years before the actual publishing of the paper that began the controversy his arguments hold enough wight to then be cited within the article that began the controversy within the Neuroscience community. Since the paper he wrote was purely scientific at most he displayed logos within his work to appeal to the audience.

What Makes Him Special? 
       John P.A. Ioannidis is special within this controversy because not only he is one of the writers of the main source but because he had made a claim for the arguments within the main source of this controversy years before without the specificity of the field of neuroscience. His original work argued that most published sources were false because of small sample size and then a lack of statistical power because of this. His claims are the same as the main source and contrary to some of the other sources.