Question at Flowing Data: what makes statistics so uninteresting?

So far (as of Monday, Dec 8), the comments are really just musing about other people's reactions. But it's an interesting question.

On a sidenote, and related more to biostatistics than general statistics, is why a group of people think that the single strongest determining factor of the results of the clinical trial is who sponsors it.

Recommended reading: the cult of statistical significance

While my own blogging languishes (it's the end of the year in pharma and biotech in an era where you have to do more with less), I refer you to John Cook's entry on the cult of statistical significance. The only thing I have to add is that I've seen cases in which where Type II errors are more important than Type I errors, I've seen the bar for statistical significane set at 0.1 rather than 0.5. While less conservative than 0.05, it doesn't erase the fundamental problems with statistical equality testing of safety problems.

Maybe this is why I get the feeling for every protocol that passes my desk that study designers are shooting themselves in the foot.