tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091734015700982094.post3797466904552495318..comments2023-11-02T02:29:48.396-07:00Comments on OPEN MINDS AND PARACHUTES: Which scientists can you trust?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14574798017615705233noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091734015700982094.post-89937298553581487652009-09-21T11:38:27.010-07:002009-09-21T11:38:27.010-07:00Hi SomeBeans thanks for the advice and suggestions...Hi SomeBeans thanks for the advice and suggestions. <br /><br />Hi Evidence thanks the the info. :) Will hunt down links, so don't worry (but sorry you lost your first draft!). <br /><br />ChristineAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14574798017615705233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091734015700982094.post-44064574247053275792009-09-21T06:27:14.700-07:002009-09-21T06:27:14.700-07:00I lost the earlier version of this comment complet...I lost the earlier version of this comment complete with links. In summary, the answer is that at best you trust but verify however there are sometimes very strong legal impediments to that.<br /><br />Goldacre refers to a report that was a strong hint that neither Christopher Malyszewicz's credentials nor his lab. facilities were sufficient to support his remarkable claims. Prof. Stephen Bustin investigated O'Leary's Unigenetics Lab. as part of the Legal Aid MMR case in the UK. The investigation consumed a vast amount of resources but Bustin indicated that the physical layout of the lab, incomplete record-keeping and lab notebooks and other irregularities were strong pointers towards a high index of suspicion.<br /><br />iirc HolfordWatch has been drawing up a detailed timeline of the MMR hoax/controversy - it was apparent at a surprisingly early date (early 1990s) that many senior scientists had profound reservations about Wakefield and the claims for his lab work - they based this on conferences, professional meetings etc. where they heard him talk.<br /><br />Bustin didn't reveal his findings about Unigenetics (at that time) because he was legally restrained until the Autism Omnibus (Day 8 proceedings, Cedillo case). Other scientists/researchers who criticised Wakefield at earlier dates received warning letters.<br /><br />There are legal impediments as to why some scientists may not feel free to discuss their opinion of various researchers/their work/lab facilities/particular papers.EMattershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00079430956952238897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091734015700982094.post-2288959979175382722009-09-21T01:46:40.940-07:002009-09-21T01:46:40.940-07:00New Scientist illustrates the multiple sourcing po...New Scientist illustrates the multiple sourcing point nicely - the news items are often based largely on a single report with a couple of quotes from scientist working in the same area. It gives you some idea as to whether an article is uncontroversial or not.<br /><br />Peer-review is the bane of any scientists life, for both grant applications and publications but to paraphrase Churchill: it's the worst system except for all the others.<br /><br />In the climate science area you might want to look at James Empty Blog (http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/) (I seem to remember he had a set of posts on the travails of getting some work published), Rabett Run (http://rabett.blogspot.com/) (recent response to some purported climate science in an odd journal) and Real Climate (www.realclimate.org)(expert commentary on many climate related papers - both good and bad). Climate science is a special case, in that it is distorted by a bus-load of real serious large-scale politics - rather than the more parochial politics usually found in science.SomeBeanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11076372969807940310noreply@blogger.com