We Must Be Open About Our Mistakes

Partly at fault here, I think, is the enormous pressure on researchers and academia to Publish or Perish.

The Corporate version is Damn the Torpedoes! Get It Out by Friday!

Where these attitudes are prevalent - and they are very prevalent - Quality is always the first casualty.

My car mechanic (the best I've ever known) has a sign over his desk and one which belongs over the desk of every single corporate CEO, board member and university regent. It's a simple triangle with one word at each apex:

Good

Fast

Cheap

Underneath are the words, Pick Any Two

For me its Time Money and Motivation.

I usually have two out of three at any point in time.

Well, a year after Andrew Wakefield tried to get his austism reducing vitamin business off the ground by faking a report on a bogus link between autism and mmr vaccines, the journal discovered that their "fact checkers" were taking the money but not doing the work. The New England J. of M. suddenly had egg on its face and humbly apologised. Then they sharpened their knives and went after Andy. But of course, when Jenny MacCarthy and others saw a way to get onto Opra (and of course kick start their fading careers) they ran with this emotionally laden defective data and proceeded to do just that. Results....hundreds of deaths and thousands of maimed children. Unforgiveable in my opinion.

And all because somebody saw a way to prey upon natural parental fear.

This is, of course, old news. Unless it is YOUR kids playing with the disease carrier in the playground.

I would have liked to see Jim Woodgett get a bit more specific on other medical bullsxxt which needs to be shut down like the unlamented (unrepentant, and still practicing!!!!) Andy Wakefield. Maybe some of these?

Oh well. I note that even the well educated members of CR4 still occasionally put their blind glasses on and regurgitate BS their grandmothers told 'em when they were young and stupid. Such is the way of things I guess.

Nowt as queer as folk.

Helsinki 2004 stipulated that the design of all research involving human subjects should be made public. It is such a simple princlple, but the consequences of doing so are (or would be) far-reaching. I don't believe this ever became a reality, and was compromised in subsequent versions of Helsinki. However it is just as applicable to research in general as it is to medical research.

If the design of research was required to be made public, and if students and colleagues were encouraged to review and be constructively critical of research design, the waste of resources in useless (or frankly offensive) studies would be diminished. We have the internet, here, we have the resources to be subject to public scrutiny. Could I repeat that, in the context of our present world, it would be trivial to expose research design to public scrutiny as a rule.

The sacred preserve of "self-governance" will be up on the altar to be chopped down if science 'research' continues to wallow in privilege and foster opportunities for fraud. Anyone who values self-governance in academia should get with.. doing that, eh.