Most of these majors all cover the same thing and will all allow you to apply for all the same jobs. one diff that may exist (depending on the college), is that environ science/studies major may not focus as much on biology as it does the political and social challenges faced with environmental impact situations.
I personally think it would be very hard to spot, and as the article states most scientists aren't even aware that they are reporting with bias. Ironically though in the article (which focuses of biomedicine results) it suggests that industry has created the bias. In the case of climate change research the results however are the opposite results to what the industry want though. The bias seems to come from not replicating studies too (that is accepting studies at face value). In respect to global warming there is ongoing studies into this matter, and models are continually being revised and improved (also data collection is ongoing). So there are some differences to the "errors" inferred in the articles for climate change science. However, the bias they are talking about would be difficult to find in climate science, especially if previous assumptions and findings are accepted at face value, and the data utilised isn't analysed afresh.
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
Most of these majors all cover the same thing and will all allow you to apply for all the same jobs. one diff that may exist (depending on the college), is that environ science/studies major may not focus as much on biology as it does the political and social challenges faced with environmental impact situations.
I personally think it would be very hard to spot, and as the article states most scientists aren't even aware that they are reporting with bias. Ironically though in the article (which focuses of biomedicine results) it suggests that industry has created the bias. In the case of climate change research the results however are the opposite results to what the industry want though. The bias seems to come from not replicating studies too (that is accepting studies at face value). In respect to global warming there is ongoing studies into this matter, and models are continually being revised and improved (also data collection is ongoing). So there are some differences to the "errors" inferred in the articles for climate change science. However, the bias they are talking about would be difficult to find in climate science, especially if previous assumptions and findings are accepted at face value, and the data utilised isn't analysed afresh.