B
Beth
Guest
[email protected] (Jonathan Smith) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Beth) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > [email protected] (Jonathan Smith) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > > [email protected] (Beth) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > > > [email protected] (Jonathan Smith) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> >
> > It's not necessary to be suspicious of anything. One can accept
> > whatever one wants without question if one so chooses.
>
> It's not that one should accept data at face value, but to evaluate it
> based on the data not presume that the data must be wrong because the
> researcher was funded by an organization that you don't agree with.
>
I haven't presumed the data to be wrong. Nor does my agreeing or not
agreeing with the funding organziation have anything to do with it.
Why do you presume such things about me?
> > However, I
> > find it useful and appropriate to be suspicious of certain things
> > rather than accepting them at face value. Study results that promote
> > a sponsor's interests are one of those things.
>
> Evaluate science on the basis of the science. Read the science, not
> the soundbite.
I evaluate everything on the basis of the information I am able to
obtain and assess. I have neither the time nor the background to read
every scientific study written and assess it independently. I have to
depend on summarizations, often from the popular media. The
alternative is to simply ignore everything I don't have time to read
myself. I don't find that a better choice.
> > > Isn't it better to read the
> > > study and then derive a conclusion based on the merits of the study as
> > > opposed to jumping to a conclusion that it cannot pssible be
> > > "accurate" because the sponsor has a stake in the outcome?
> >
> > Yes, it's better to read the study than jumping to conclusions. When I
> > say that I am suspicious, that simply means that I am less inclined to
> > accept the conclusions without first reading the study than I would be
> > otherwise. Is that really inappropriate?
>
> Do you actual accept what a newspaper says about a scientific article
> at face value?
No. But I generally assume that there is some basis for the article.
It's usually safe to assume that a study was done on the subject in
question by the researchers mentioned. The results are typically
given in terms of recommendations for the lay public which may or may
not be applicable to me and which may or may not be an accurate
representation of the study's scientific results.
> > I may, for a study I find of
> > particular interest, read the original , but I can't read every
> > scientific study published. I can't even keep up with my own field.
> > So I usually just read the summarizations in the news media and from
> > other sources and maintain what I think of as a 'healthy skepticism'
> > regarding everything I read.
>
> So, you discount the validity of data because it happens to be
> sponsored by someone who actually has an interest in the results?
Gracious, but you make a great many assumptions based on very little
data. Are you aware that such conclusions are frequently incorrect?
I hope that when you were an active researcher, you were more careful
about what conclusions you felt the data justified.
No, I don't discount the validity of the data. I discount the
validity of recommendations made that support the interest of the
sponsors. Then doesn't mean that I reject those recommendations
outright, merely that I assign a lower credibility to them.
> And
> then accept at face value what some third party says about it? A
> third party that has NO obligation to detail its potential conflicts
> of interest?
Yet another incorrect assumption. No, I don't accept at face value
what some third party says, but I do integrate the opinion of that
third party into my total knowledge structure, which includes my own
personal estimation of the credibility of the third party. I rate
"Scientific American" as considerably more credible than I do my local
newspaper. But I read and assimilate information from both.
> > > > Particularly if there was a provision that
> > > > allowed the sponser to withhold unfavorable results from publication.
> > >
> > > That has NOTHING at all to do with what is published. The question of
> > > publication bias (it's the term used to refer to the absence of
> > > negative studies) is a separate and distinct issue.
> >
> > I'll grant you that such a distinction exists, but I don't find it a
> > particularly useful distinction when I'm evaluating the results of
> > research outside of my area (which means all health related research
> > since that isn't my field). I consider the fact that research that
> > doesn't promote sponsers goals and objectives isn't very likely to be
> > published (many research grants have clauses that allow them to forbid
> > publication of results that are not to their liking).
>
> There is not a single research grant that I have been involved with
> that has ever limited the publication rights of the investigator other
> than delaying the publication of those results because of intellectual
> property considerations. Not one. I would never sign one, my
> university would never allow it, and later in my career my employers
> never required it. The only clause is the right to review and comment
> prior to submission. And that is only fair.
That's nice. But I don't accept your experiences as being
representative of all such research grants. I know that such
publication restrictions exist in some cases. Even when it is not a
formal part of the agreement, it may well be an understood albeit
unwritten policy that researchers who publish results detrimental to
the sponsor will have not be the recipients of any further grants from
that sponsor.
> > I also realize
> > that research that doesn't promote sponsers goals and objectives isn't
> > likely to be done at all (no funding).
>
> And this is a problem? Remember, the private sector isn't the only
> source of research funding. And, also note that the private sector
> does fund quite a bit of basic and exploratory research on an
> unrtestricted grant basis and through foundations.
Yes, I think that it is. For example, I'd like to see legitimate
scientific health care research funded for inexpensive alternative
treatments. But without a reasonable expectation of profit, no one
funds them. Without funding, no scientific research gets done.
Without the research, alternative treatments remain outside of
mainstream western medicine. Is that a problem? Given our current
spiraling health care system costs, I think that it is. You may
disagree.
> > So I keep that in mind when
> > I'm reading results in the lay press and making health care decisions
> > for me and my family.
> If you rely on the lay press to make health decisions, you are doing
> yourself a disservice. Do you rely on the lay press to amke decisions
> about what candidate to vote for?
I make my own decisions in both cases. I don't rely on others to tell
me what choices are best, though I do listen to the opinions of people
I respect. I rely on the lay press to provide me with some of the
information that I base those decisions on.
In neither case, to I solely rely on the information they provide, but
I do integrate the information they provide with information I have
available from other sources and base my decisions on the total
information I have from all sources, taking into account how much
weight or credibility I give to each source.
> > When I say 'suspicious', I don't mean that I'm suspicious that the
> > science wasn't performed properly. I generally trust the peer-review
> > process to weed out poorly performed science. What I mean is that I'm
> > suspicious that recommendations based on that research are necessarily
> > in the best interest of me or my family.
>
> The transfer of data to policy is suspect because the interests of the
> translators are rarely made explicit. I trust the ACIP a lot more
> than the CDC.
Exactly my point. The transfer from data/research results to policy
is suspect. Thus I am suspicious of it.
> > Is a new medication,
> > surgery, or other health recommendation really the best solution to a
> > problem, or is an un-scientifically tested herbal remedy
>
> Don't even go there with me.
>
> > or perhaps a
> > better diet and exercise regime likely to be just as effective and
> > much less expensive, though not near as profitable for the sponsors?
>
> You have choices, you have a brain. Use them.
I consider this an insult and a personal attack. I realize this is
common on usenet, but just so you will know, I prefer not to converse
with people who insult me.
> > Is a new vaccination really the best thing for my child, or is it more
> > appropraite to wait awhile? That's the sort of *suspicion* that runs
> > through my mind.
>
> And that has nothing to do with whether the data are credible or the
> researcher is ethical or even if the potential of conflict of interest
> exists - that's just a natural skepticism of something new.
Correct. I don't equate having suspicion of the
results/recommendations with claiming that the data aren't credible or
the researchers are unethical. That's one of the main points that I,
and others, have been trying to get across to you.
> > And just as such campaign
> > contributions aren't going to change the politicians votes - he can
> > maintain his integrity and still accept the funds - so also can the
> > scientist accept such funding and maintain his integrity by making
> > sure the results are scientifically valid as well as supporting both
> > his and his sponsors beliefs. But that doesn't mean that either the
> > politician or the scientist would be considered unbiased from my point
> > of view.
>
> The individual may have personal convictions you call bias - but the
> data do not. Politicians deliver votes, not data. Scientists deliver
> data, not votes - in spite of what Roger may suggest about the ACIP.
>
> I appreciate your position, Beth, but it is naive. As you yourself
> admit, you are not expert in health care research and you rely on the
> news media to keep you informed. I find data to be the root of all
> science and the media to be the wart on the nose of good science.
I appreciate your position, Mr. Smith, but it is naïve. Cut off that
wart and you will find that you've cut off your nose to spite your
face. I find the media to be an indispensable part of assimilating
the vast quantities of information that are available today. The
quality, credibility and ‘spin' of the news source have to be kept in
mind, but they provide summarizations of the research and the
recommendations made based on that research as well as giving
divergent viewpoints regarding it. I find all that too useful to
reject outright, even if I do have to filter it all through a
*credibility* sieve.
> [email protected] (Beth) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > [email protected] (Jonathan Smith) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > > [email protected] (Beth) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > > > [email protected] (Jonathan Smith) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> >
> > It's not necessary to be suspicious of anything. One can accept
> > whatever one wants without question if one so chooses.
>
> It's not that one should accept data at face value, but to evaluate it
> based on the data not presume that the data must be wrong because the
> researcher was funded by an organization that you don't agree with.
>
I haven't presumed the data to be wrong. Nor does my agreeing or not
agreeing with the funding organziation have anything to do with it.
Why do you presume such things about me?
> > However, I
> > find it useful and appropriate to be suspicious of certain things
> > rather than accepting them at face value. Study results that promote
> > a sponsor's interests are one of those things.
>
> Evaluate science on the basis of the science. Read the science, not
> the soundbite.
I evaluate everything on the basis of the information I am able to
obtain and assess. I have neither the time nor the background to read
every scientific study written and assess it independently. I have to
depend on summarizations, often from the popular media. The
alternative is to simply ignore everything I don't have time to read
myself. I don't find that a better choice.
> > > Isn't it better to read the
> > > study and then derive a conclusion based on the merits of the study as
> > > opposed to jumping to a conclusion that it cannot pssible be
> > > "accurate" because the sponsor has a stake in the outcome?
> >
> > Yes, it's better to read the study than jumping to conclusions. When I
> > say that I am suspicious, that simply means that I am less inclined to
> > accept the conclusions without first reading the study than I would be
> > otherwise. Is that really inappropriate?
>
> Do you actual accept what a newspaper says about a scientific article
> at face value?
No. But I generally assume that there is some basis for the article.
It's usually safe to assume that a study was done on the subject in
question by the researchers mentioned. The results are typically
given in terms of recommendations for the lay public which may or may
not be applicable to me and which may or may not be an accurate
representation of the study's scientific results.
> > I may, for a study I find of
> > particular interest, read the original , but I can't read every
> > scientific study published. I can't even keep up with my own field.
> > So I usually just read the summarizations in the news media and from
> > other sources and maintain what I think of as a 'healthy skepticism'
> > regarding everything I read.
>
> So, you discount the validity of data because it happens to be
> sponsored by someone who actually has an interest in the results?
Gracious, but you make a great many assumptions based on very little
data. Are you aware that such conclusions are frequently incorrect?
I hope that when you were an active researcher, you were more careful
about what conclusions you felt the data justified.
No, I don't discount the validity of the data. I discount the
validity of recommendations made that support the interest of the
sponsors. Then doesn't mean that I reject those recommendations
outright, merely that I assign a lower credibility to them.
> And
> then accept at face value what some third party says about it? A
> third party that has NO obligation to detail its potential conflicts
> of interest?
Yet another incorrect assumption. No, I don't accept at face value
what some third party says, but I do integrate the opinion of that
third party into my total knowledge structure, which includes my own
personal estimation of the credibility of the third party. I rate
"Scientific American" as considerably more credible than I do my local
newspaper. But I read and assimilate information from both.
> > > > Particularly if there was a provision that
> > > > allowed the sponser to withhold unfavorable results from publication.
> > >
> > > That has NOTHING at all to do with what is published. The question of
> > > publication bias (it's the term used to refer to the absence of
> > > negative studies) is a separate and distinct issue.
> >
> > I'll grant you that such a distinction exists, but I don't find it a
> > particularly useful distinction when I'm evaluating the results of
> > research outside of my area (which means all health related research
> > since that isn't my field). I consider the fact that research that
> > doesn't promote sponsers goals and objectives isn't very likely to be
> > published (many research grants have clauses that allow them to forbid
> > publication of results that are not to their liking).
>
> There is not a single research grant that I have been involved with
> that has ever limited the publication rights of the investigator other
> than delaying the publication of those results because of intellectual
> property considerations. Not one. I would never sign one, my
> university would never allow it, and later in my career my employers
> never required it. The only clause is the right to review and comment
> prior to submission. And that is only fair.
That's nice. But I don't accept your experiences as being
representative of all such research grants. I know that such
publication restrictions exist in some cases. Even when it is not a
formal part of the agreement, it may well be an understood albeit
unwritten policy that researchers who publish results detrimental to
the sponsor will have not be the recipients of any further grants from
that sponsor.
> > I also realize
> > that research that doesn't promote sponsers goals and objectives isn't
> > likely to be done at all (no funding).
>
> And this is a problem? Remember, the private sector isn't the only
> source of research funding. And, also note that the private sector
> does fund quite a bit of basic and exploratory research on an
> unrtestricted grant basis and through foundations.
Yes, I think that it is. For example, I'd like to see legitimate
scientific health care research funded for inexpensive alternative
treatments. But without a reasonable expectation of profit, no one
funds them. Without funding, no scientific research gets done.
Without the research, alternative treatments remain outside of
mainstream western medicine. Is that a problem? Given our current
spiraling health care system costs, I think that it is. You may
disagree.
> > So I keep that in mind when
> > I'm reading results in the lay press and making health care decisions
> > for me and my family.
> If you rely on the lay press to make health decisions, you are doing
> yourself a disservice. Do you rely on the lay press to amke decisions
> about what candidate to vote for?
I make my own decisions in both cases. I don't rely on others to tell
me what choices are best, though I do listen to the opinions of people
I respect. I rely on the lay press to provide me with some of the
information that I base those decisions on.
In neither case, to I solely rely on the information they provide, but
I do integrate the information they provide with information I have
available from other sources and base my decisions on the total
information I have from all sources, taking into account how much
weight or credibility I give to each source.
> > When I say 'suspicious', I don't mean that I'm suspicious that the
> > science wasn't performed properly. I generally trust the peer-review
> > process to weed out poorly performed science. What I mean is that I'm
> > suspicious that recommendations based on that research are necessarily
> > in the best interest of me or my family.
>
> The transfer of data to policy is suspect because the interests of the
> translators are rarely made explicit. I trust the ACIP a lot more
> than the CDC.
Exactly my point. The transfer from data/research results to policy
is suspect. Thus I am suspicious of it.
> > Is a new medication,
> > surgery, or other health recommendation really the best solution to a
> > problem, or is an un-scientifically tested herbal remedy
>
> Don't even go there with me.
>
> > or perhaps a
> > better diet and exercise regime likely to be just as effective and
> > much less expensive, though not near as profitable for the sponsors?
>
> You have choices, you have a brain. Use them.
I consider this an insult and a personal attack. I realize this is
common on usenet, but just so you will know, I prefer not to converse
with people who insult me.
> > Is a new vaccination really the best thing for my child, or is it more
> > appropraite to wait awhile? That's the sort of *suspicion* that runs
> > through my mind.
>
> And that has nothing to do with whether the data are credible or the
> researcher is ethical or even if the potential of conflict of interest
> exists - that's just a natural skepticism of something new.
Correct. I don't equate having suspicion of the
results/recommendations with claiming that the data aren't credible or
the researchers are unethical. That's one of the main points that I,
and others, have been trying to get across to you.
> > And just as such campaign
> > contributions aren't going to change the politicians votes - he can
> > maintain his integrity and still accept the funds - so also can the
> > scientist accept such funding and maintain his integrity by making
> > sure the results are scientifically valid as well as supporting both
> > his and his sponsors beliefs. But that doesn't mean that either the
> > politician or the scientist would be considered unbiased from my point
> > of view.
>
> The individual may have personal convictions you call bias - but the
> data do not. Politicians deliver votes, not data. Scientists deliver
> data, not votes - in spite of what Roger may suggest about the ACIP.
>
> I appreciate your position, Beth, but it is naive. As you yourself
> admit, you are not expert in health care research and you rely on the
> news media to keep you informed. I find data to be the root of all
> science and the media to be the wart on the nose of good science.
I appreciate your position, Mr. Smith, but it is naïve. Cut off that
wart and you will find that you've cut off your nose to spite your
face. I find the media to be an indispensable part of assimilating
the vast quantities of information that are available today. The
quality, credibility and ‘spin' of the news source have to be kept in
mind, but they provide summarizations of the research and the
recommendations made based on that research as well as giving
divergent viewpoints regarding it. I find all that too useful to
reject outright, even if I do have to filter it all through a
*credibility* sieve.