One of my most favorite blogs write
We have absolutely no reason–or, at least, no need–to criticize anything about individual mapping papers. Surely there are false findings, mis-used statistical tests, and so on, but that is part of the normal life in science, because we don’t know everything and have to make assumptions, etc. Some of the findings will be ephemeral, sample-specific, and so on. That doesn’t make them wrong. Instead, the critique should be aimed at authors who present such work with a straight face as if it is (1) important, (2) novel in any really novel way, and (3) not saying that the paper shows why, by now with so many qualitatively similar results, we should stop public funding of this sort of work. We should move on to more cogent science that reflects, but doesn’t just repeat, the discovery of genomic causal (or, at least, associational) complexity.
Maybe I see also good reasons to criticize individual mapping papers.