HP3000-L Archives

March 2004, Week 1

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Richard Ali <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Richard Ali <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 1 Mar 2004 09:46:28 -0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (103 lines)
Wirt writes:
>... No one quite ever gets around to telling you rules in science, but you
quickly pick them up during your six, eight or ten years of postgraduate
training. The most basic rules are that you are allowed to distort,
misrepresent or present half-truths exactly one time. After that, you will
ostracized from the community, you will recieve no more grant monies, you
will be asked to resign your position and you will most likely never publish
a paper in a well-reviewed journal again.
--------

Although I appreciate your general point here, this thread has already
raised the issue of the perverted representation of scientific research to
the general public.  An earlier post of yours essentially highlights that
with enough effort "we" could see through the spin and deliberate
misrepresentation by getting to the research behind them.  The initial
problem this presents, to me a non-scientist, is that I probably would not
understand the research papers and, even if I did, I may not be able to draw
the appropriate inferences from them.  I'm relying on my sources to do the
analysis for me.

But to address your comment above, I think you are holding your fellow
scientists in rather too high a regard.  The danger of loss of reputation
amongst ones peers is clearly not enough to prevent scientists publishing
research skewed in favour of their paymasters.  This is a hot-topic here in
the UK with the findings of a doctors research linking the MMR vaccine and
autism leading to a significant amount of parents not immunising their
children.

From http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1154585,00.html :
"One study, published in 2001, found that only 16% of scientific journals
had a policy on conflicts of interest, and only 0.5% of the papers they
published disclosed such conflicts. The same researcher found that 34% of
the lead authors of the scientific papers he studied were compromised by
their sources of funding. In other words, the great majority of the
scientists with conflicts of interest are failing to disclose them"

And:
"...British and US scientists are putting their names to papers they have
not written. The papers are "ghosted" or co-written by employees of the
drugs companies, then signed, for a handsome fee, by respectable
researchers. In some cases, the researchers have not even seen the raw data
on which the papers' conclusions are based. A pharmacologist who has studied
the practice told the Guardian: "It may well be that 50% of the articles on
drugs in the major journals across all areas of medicine are not written in
a way that the average person in the street expects." "

So, such scientists would seem not to be ostracised, do not lose any
research funding, retain their positions and there probably isn't any such
thing as a well-reviewed journal.

Is my take on this valid? Trust no-one, perhaps?

Cheers

Richard







The contents of this email are confidential to the intended recipient
and may not be disclosed. Although it is believed that this email and
any attachments are virus free, it is the responsibility of the recipient to confirm this.

Smith & Williamson Corporate Finance Limited - A member of M&A
International Inc. http://www.mergers.net Registered in England No.
4533970. Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority
Smith & Williamson Investment Management Limited, Registered No. 976145. Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority.
Smith & Williamson Pension Consultancy Limited - Independent
Intermediary. Registered No. 3133226. Authorised and regulated by the
Financial Services Authority.
Smith & Williamson Unit Trust Managers Limited, Registered No. 1934644. Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority.
Smith & Williamson Limited - A member of Nexia International.
Registered in England No. 4534022. Regulated by the Institute of
Chartered Accountants in England & Wales for a range of investment
business activities.

Registered Office: No 1 Riding House Street, London W1A 3AS
Telephone: 020 7637 5377 http://www.smith.williamson.co.uk

Nexia Audit Limited - A member of Nexia International. Registered in
England No. 4469576. Registered to carry on audit work and regulated by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales for a range of investment business activities.

Registered Office: No 1 Riding House Street, London W1A 3AS
Telephone: 020 7637 5377 http://www.nexiaaudit.co.uk

NCL Investments Limited, Registered No. 1913794.
Member of the London Stock Exchange authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority.

Registered Office: Bartlett House, 9-12 Basinghall Street, London  EC2V 5NS
Telephone: 020 7600 2801


______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

ATOM RSS1 RSS2