Science, Maths & Technology

Statistically significant: The US Supreme Court takes a view

Updated Tuesday 12th April 2011

A lawsuit over a cold remedy has forced the US Supreme Court into deciding what might be statistically significant.

The rulings of the US Supreme Court aren't the place most people would start looking for a discussion of what the phrase "statistically significant" might mean. But in March 2011, America's highest court of justice made a decision that involved exactly that.

Contemplation of Justice: A figure outside the US Supreme Court Creative commons image Icon Clearly Ambiguous under CC-BY licence under Creative-Commons license
Contemplation of Justice: A figure outside the US Supreme Court building

The case involved a case originally brought by investors in a company called Matrixx Initiatives Inc., who manufacture a range of over-the-counter medicaments including one called Zicam Cold Remedy.

The investors alleged that Matrixx had failed to disclose material information to them, when it had received reports that people who had taken Zicam Cold Remedy had suffered a loss of sense of smell. When these reports did become public, the share price fell, thus (allegedly) losing the investors money.

People do lose their sense of smell sometimes, for reasons that have nothing to do with a drug. Matrixx argued that the number of cases of loss of sense of smell in people who had taken Zicam was not significantly higher, in the statistical sense, than the number one would expect to see if the drug had no effect on sense of smell.

For that and other reasons, Matrixx argued that they had no obligation to disclose the reports to their investors. The case depended to a major extent, therefore, on the idea of statistical significance testing.

What's all that about? I've given a brief explanation in another OpenLearn article, Confusing terms in statistics, so I won't repeat all that, but briefly the point of doing a significance test is to see whether it is plausible that some feature in data can be explained by chance alone.

In the Matrixx case, perhaps they did get more cases of loss of sense of smell than one might have expected if the remedy had no effect on sense of smell, but maybe this could have been due entirely to chance – people who were going to lose their sense of smell anyway might just have happened to take the cold remedy.

If, after performing a statistical significance test, the conclusion was that the data are consistent with this "it's all just chance" explanation, one would report that the results were "not statistically significant".

Matrixx did claim this, but went further and argued that, because they were not statistically significant, they did not have to be disclosed.

An interesting feature of the Matrixx case is that arguments to the court were not submitted only by lawyers, investment experts, and so on, but also by Deirdre McCloskey and Steve Ziliak. They are economists and statisticians who are well known for publishing a book called The Cult of Statistical Significance, which, as you might guess from the title, is not complimentary about the way that significance testing has been used.

McCloskey and Ziliak submitted an amicus brief, or more precisely an amicus curiae brief (from Latin words meaning "friend of the court"). This is a submission to the court from a person or organisation that is not one of the parties involved in the case, but which is intended in some way to throw light on the case.

They did not argue wholesale against the use of the ideas of statistical significance. Instead, they argued as follows:

If a feature in data is not statistically significant, it's reasonable to take that to mean that the feature might plausibly be due solely to the workings of chance.

But just because it might be due to chance, that doesn't mean it is due to chance. That's only one possible explanation.

There will be others, and thus a decision on whether some piece of information is relevant can't be based on statistical significance alone. The court agreed with this line in their judgment. They said quite clearly that "Matrixx's premise that statistical significance is the only reliable indication of causation is flawed."

Most, if not all, statisticians would agree with them. Statistics students often get annoyed with what seems like excessive pedantry from their teachers. The statisticians will insist that one does not accept the hypothesis that some data feature is due to chance alone.

One merely fails to reject such a hypothesis, if the results are not statistically significant.

The idea here is that "accept" sounds too much as if one is saying, "Yes, we know it's just chance". "Fail to reject" allows the possibility that it might just be chance, but allows other possibilities too.

There's reason in our pedantry. To quote another cliché, absence of proof isn't the same as proof of absence, and a result that's not statistically significant is absence of proof that something is happening that goes beyond mere chance.

A couple of aspects of this discussion that might interest you, depending on your background:

First, what is really going on with statistical experts like Ziliak and McCloskey rubbishing significance tests? Surely they are a key and fundamental aspect of the way statistics is done?

Well, not everyone would be quite as critical as Ziliak and McCloskey, but actually, many statisticians would be very critical of the unthinking and routine use of significance testing that goes on in many areas of enquiry. (If you understand a little of the technical ideas behind significance testing, you might enjoy reading another criticism from a slightly different angle, Mindless Statistics, by Gerd Gigerenzer, the well-known author on risk. [The article opens as a pdf.])

Second, some people find it surprising at first sight that the law should be concerned with ideas and methods of statistics. But if you think about it, it's not really surprising at all.

Both statistics and the law involve dealing with uncertainty – admittedly often with different goals in sight, but uncertainty is there as an inescapable aspect in both. Gary Slapper, Professor of Law at the Open University, has written about statistics and the law

Statisticians and lawyers would not always agree on what should be done about the uncertainty, but perhaps that's inevitable – the law has to come to a clear decision on every case, however much uncertainty there is, whereas we statisticians can sometimes have the luxury of saying that there's simply not enough evidence to decide.

Further reading

Discover how to study statistics or law with The Open University.

If you're interested in the legal details, the briefs submitted to the Supreme Court in the Matrixx case (including the McCloskey and Ziliak brief) are online, as are a pdf transcript of the oral argument, and the  "opinion" (i.e. judgment), again as a pdf.

 

For further information, take a look at our frequently asked questions which may give you the support you need.

Have a question?

Other content you may like

Sacred and Secular: Section 2 - Finding legal judgments and legal commentary Creative commons image Icon Gordon Giles under CC-BY-ND-2.5 licence under Creative-Commons license article icon

Society, Politics & Law 

Sacred and Secular: Section 2 - Finding legal judgments and legal commentary

Judgments are given by judges sitting in different types of courts and these courts exists in different types of legal system. It is useful to understand this context in order to find and analyse judgments. This section explores those differences before moving on to identify where the judgments can be found.  

Article
Naked before the court?: The reality of human rights Creative commons image Icon mrrobertwade under CC-BY-NC-SA licence under Creative-Commons license audio icon

Society, Politics & Law 

Naked before the court?: The reality of human rights

Appearing naked before a judge, and voting while in prison: How far should respect for human rights go?

Audio
15 mins
Understanding numbers: Taking it further Creative commons image Icon Mykl Roventine under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 licence under Creative-Commons license article icon

Science, Maths & Technology 

Understanding numbers: Taking it further

Want to know what it's like to study at the OU? Explore how you can use numbers to describe the natural world and make sense of everything from atoms to oceans in this free course. 

Article
Modelling static problems Copyrighted image Icon Copyright: Used with permission free course icon Level 2 icon

Science, Maths & Technology 

Modelling static problems

This free course, Modelling static problems, lays the foundation of the subject of mechanics. Mechanics is concerned with how and why objects stay put, and how and why they move. In particular, the course considers why objects stay put. And it assumes that you have a good working knowledge of vectors.

Free course
16 hrs
Ratio, proportion and percentages Copyrighted image Icon Copyright: Used with permission free course icon Level 1 icon

Science, Maths & Technology 

Ratio, proportion and percentages

From politics to cookery, ratios, proportions and percentages are part of everyday life. This free course is designed to help you become more familiar with how figures can be manipulated, then you can check whether that discount really is as big as they claim!

Free course
5 hrs
Diagrams, charts and graphs Copyrighted image Icon Copyright: Used with permission free course icon Level 1 icon

Science, Maths & Technology 

Diagrams, charts and graphs

Diagrams, charts and graphs are used by all sorts of people to express information in a visual way, whether it's in a report by a colleague or a plan from your interior designer. This free course will teach you how to interpret these tools and how to use them yourself to convey information more effectively.

Free course
5 hrs
Geometry Copyrighted image Icon Copyright: Used with permission free course icon Level 1 icon

Science, Maths & Technology 

Geometry

Geometry is concerned with the various aspects of size, shape and space. In this free course you will explore the concepts of angles, shapes, symmetry, area and volume through interactive activities.

Free course
5 hrs
Babylonian mathematics Copyrighted image Icon Copyright: Used with permission free course icon Level 2 icon

Science, Maths & Technology 

Babylonian mathematics

This free course looks at Babylonian mathematics. You will learn how a series of discoveries has enabled historians to decipher stone tablets and study the various techniques the Babylonians used for problem-solving and teaching. The Babylonian problem-solving skills have been described as remarkable and scribes of the time received a training far in advance of anything available in medieval Christian Europe 3000 years later.

Free course
8 hrs
Starting with maths: Patterns and formulas Copyrighted image Icon Copyright: Used with permission free course icon Level 1 icon

Science, Maths & Technology 

Starting with maths: Patterns and formulas

Patterns occur everywhere in art, nature, science and especially mathematics. Being able to recognise, describe and use these patterns is an important skill that helps you to tackle a wide variety of different problems. This free course, Starting with maths: Patterns and formulas, explores some of these patterns, from ancient number patterns to the latest mathematical research.

Free course
5 hrs