I refuse to accept the results of this study:

After years of argument over the roles of factors like genius, sex and dumb luck, a new study shows that something entirely unexpected and considerably sudsier may be at play in determining the success or failure of scientists -- beer.

According to the study, published in February in Oikos, a highly respected scientific journal, the more beer a scientist drinks, the less likely the scientist is to publish a paper or to have a paper cited by another researcher, a measure of a paper's quality and importance.

The results were not, however, a matter of a few scientists having had too many brews to be able to stumble back to the lab. Publication did not simply drop off among the heaviest drinkers. Instead, scientific performance steadily declined with increasing beer consumption across the board, from scientists who primly sip at two or three beers over a year to the sort who average knocking back more than two a day.

As they point out later in the article, this study may has several limitations. The first is that the results may not generalize. Czechs have a high rate of beer consumption, and the correlation may not apply elsewhere. Also, correlation does not equal causation. The heavy beer drinkers might have some other factor in their lives that accounts for poor performance which is also related with high beer consumption -- perhaps marital stress or difficulty in dealing with people. Finally, it could that beer consumption is the effect rather than the cause of poor performance -- the article refers to this as the "drowning your sorrows" effect.

In spite of those caveats, I have a solution to make everyone happy. Want to increase your scientific productivity? Drink more vodka.

Hat-tip: Slashdot