Stakeholder #2

     There are multiple stakeholders for every controversy, on both sides, or on the multiple sides of an argument. Another stakeholder in the controversy over whether small sample sizes are undermining reliability of neuroscience is Peter Bacchetti, who works in the department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology at the University of California.

Sancomb-Moran, Mary Beth. "Biostats wordmap" 06/17/2008 via Flickr.
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

Who is He?
        At first glance it is hard to decide how one should feel about Peter Bacchetti. Thin and lanky, of that look of older but still some undeterminable age, he projects a trustworthy persona but may carry some harshness if one was to be under his tutelage of professorship. With a nearly full head of hair, all gray, and a goatee to match; as well as square rimmed glasses, he portrays a feeling of wisdom and guidance. However it is near impossible to get a better idea of who the man is because he seems to carry no sort of presence besides that of academia; working to fix statistical representations as well as researching HIV and liver diseases.

What are His Claims?
        One of Bacchetti's main claims is that the small sample size of research is "[misidentified] as a fundamental cause of problems" within said research. He instead claims that it is "the [acceptance of] a very harmful overemphasis on whether p< 0.05", that ruins the studies of reliability, and at the same time is the true issue within research in the neurosciences community.  The third claim made by Bacchetti is that "diminishing marginal returns" are a large part of why small sample size is totally acceptable for an accurate study; adding more candidates decreases the amount of statistic they count for as a whole.

Proof of Validity
       The claims made by Bacchetti have validity because of the statistical proofs presented within the paper; he used known rules of statistics to make solid points for the use and acceptance of small sample sizes within neuroscience research. He makes sure to utilize multiple sources for citations to insure the credibility of his response. He presents himself as a credible author because of his knowledge and expertise in biostatistics.

What Makes Him Special? 
        For commonality, Bacchetti agrees somewhat with both Ashton and Quinlan, that small sample size is not the issue with reliability in neuroscience studies. He stands out in his concern of biases mostly effecting the ideas to reliability when considering studies. While fundamentally he is against Button et al. within this controversy he agree there are problems within research statistics.