5 ms·

* science-based * fetus * transgender * vulnerable * entitlement * diversity * evidence-based

dmitrygr 9y ago
I don't agree with this move. But I also am not outraged * science-based * evidence-based Unnecessary. Anything the CDC produces better be science based already * fetus annoying, but synonymous words exist * transgender Are some diseases suddenly targeting people based on their identified sex? If no, the CDC has no business discussing this anyways. * vulnerable Subjective words have no place in scientific discourse * entitlement * diversity Political words also have no place in scientific discourse
- butterfi 9y ago
  I am incredulous that the current administration wants to ban the use of the words 'science-based' or 'evidence-based' because they are "unnecessary" or redundant. It seems far more likely that this is the same kind of political maneuvering that led Gov. Scott to instruct Florida officials to not use the words "climate-change." It's a deliberate attempt to obscure facts from the public.
  - Buldak 9y ago
    Yes, I'm seeing a lot of people who say "science-based" and "evidence-based" are non-informative. If that were true there would be no need for a ban, unless you think this is a bold new approach to copy-editing. What's worrisome is precisely that words like "science-based" and "evidence-based" are informative in the context of this administration--which is why they're banned.
  - pmorici 9y ago
    The last administration signed a law that directs government to communicate with the public in so called plain language! https://www.plainlanguage.gov/law/ https://www.plainlanguage.gov/law/
    - adjkant 9y ago
      Readability and censorship are two very different things. At its surface, using plain language should not hinder any communication of ideas and would generally have benefits to achieving goals. Unless the standard prevents communication of ideas, I don't see any problem here.
  - smallnamespace 9y ago
    Please don't be fooled by the branding. Evidence-Based Medicine[1] is a particular movement that makes particular claims about what sorts of evidence are better than other sorts of evidence, and how we should (re-)structure clinical practice to revolve around these. In other words, EBC != evidence-based medicine. It strongly emphasizes large-scale studies at the expense of other types of empirical knowledge, namely the direct clinical experience of the practitioners. What might be the harm in doing so? Why shouldn't we all rely only on large-scale meta-analyses to guide treatment? 1. There are important clinical questions that are difficult to measure in a double-blind clinical framework; the risk is that we end up optimizing what we can easily measure over what is truly important, the health of the patient. 2. It increasingly risks turning doctors into assembly-line technicians that are only there to take the indicated 'evidence-based' tests and treatments. It takes agency and decisionmaking effectively from the hands of doctors and transfers it to large research bureaucracies, which may or may not be asking the right questions. It increases the social and informational distance between the patient and the point of decision-making -- which we've seen can have disastrous consequences (for example, in planned economies), when that distance impeded the smooth flow of information. 3. It presupposes the the studies and meta-analyses in the research pipeline are a good decomposition of the current state of medical knowledge. E.g. if there's an analysis that says 'treat a person with diabetes with treatment X', then that approach would work well, regardless of the specifics of the actual patient at the clinical level. Patients don't come cleanly with a single diagnositic label; most people with chronic conditions have more than one, for example. Note that the methodology and effectiveness of Evidence-Based Medicine has itself not been subjected to rigorous large-scale scientific evaluation; we are literally being asked to take on faith that this particular 'EBC' implementation of evidence-based medicine will be better. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine#Limitations_and_criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine#Limita...
    - lern_too_spel 9y ago
      It provides a reasonable framework for testing its own efffectiveness. If you don't think it works, just do the experiment and compute the statistics.
- conception 9y ago
  The CDC does studies on populations though. So now they can't say if the health outcomes for those on medical entitlements are on par with private insurances. Or propose studies on learning techniques to help deal with transgender issues. This is just more of Republicans denying funding for facts they don't want to know because the answers will probably not help their agenda. Similarly to how they say the CDC can't study any gun control outcomes related to mental health or really any reason. Note: I know this is just for budget note but it's not a great direction.
- grzm 9y ago
  > "Are some diseases suddenly targeting people..." While perhaps belying the name, the CDC's mandate is broader than only disease, it's general public health, including, among many things, occupational safety and injury prevention. Anything which may lead too injury or death can be considered under their purview.
- jwilliams 9y ago
  > Political words also have no place in scientific discourse I think you're mistaking the charter and purpose of the CDC. Controlling disease has plenty of hard science -- but much of it is messy and full of human factors. That's what those words represent.
- adamson 9y ago
  I think you're coming into this with a lot of baggage. "Vulnerable" isn't necessarily subjective, e.g. "poor populations are vulnerable to diabetes" is a statement that evidence can be brought to bear on.
- cowpig 9y ago
  "The genetic diversity of the strains of these bacteria leave us vulnerable to..." Wait crap my statement was too political and subjective
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- adjkant 9y ago
  * transgender > "Are some diseases suddenly targeting people based on their identified sex? If no, the CDC has no business discussing this anyways." One study the CDC works on is HIV within transgender communities. Tell me how that isn't within their scope to look at. What about any other public health issues that are more concentrated within transgender individuals? Can they not study that and try to figure out what is causing it and if things can be done?
- astura 9y ago
  What is a synonyms of "fetus?" Embryo only applies to a specific stage of development.
arkona 9y ago
If one word needs to be banned, it is “diversity” - an overused and meaningless term.
AckSyn 9y ago
All word of mouth based on an unnamed analyst as a brief part of a meeting. So in spite of the disturbing nature of it, I'm calling it unsubstantiated hearsay until otherwise.

I don't agree with this move. But I also am not outraged * science-based * evidence-based Unnecessary. Anything the CDC produces better be science based already * fetus annoying, but synonymous words exist * transgender Are some diseases suddenly targeting people based on their identified sex? If no, the CDC has no business discussing this anyways. * vulnerable Subjective words have no place in scientific discourse * entitlement * diversity Political words also have no place in scientific discourse

butterfi 9y ago
I am incredulous that the current administration wants to ban the use of the words 'science-based' or 'evidence-based' because they are "unnecessary" or redundant. It seems far more likely that this is the same kind of political maneuvering that led Gov. Scott to instruct Florida officials to not use the words "climate-change." It's a deliberate attempt to obscure facts from the public.
- Buldak 9y ago
  Yes, I'm seeing a lot of people who say "science-based" and "evidence-based" are non-informative. If that were true there would be no need for a ban, unless you think this is a bold new approach to copy-editing. What's worrisome is precisely that words like "science-based" and "evidence-based" are informative in the context of this administration--which is why they're banned.
- pmorici 9y ago
  The last administration signed a law that directs government to communicate with the public in so called plain language! https://www.plainlanguage.gov/law/ https://www.plainlanguage.gov/law/
  - adjkant 9y ago
    Readability and censorship are two very different things. At its surface, using plain language should not hinder any communication of ideas and would generally have benefits to achieving goals. Unless the standard prevents communication of ideas, I don't see any problem here.
- smallnamespace 9y ago
  Please don't be fooled by the branding. Evidence-Based Medicine[1] is a particular movement that makes particular claims about what sorts of evidence are better than other sorts of evidence, and how we should (re-)structure clinical practice to revolve around these. In other words, EBC != evidence-based medicine. It strongly emphasizes large-scale studies at the expense of other types of empirical knowledge, namely the direct clinical experience of the practitioners. What might be the harm in doing so? Why shouldn't we all rely only on large-scale meta-analyses to guide treatment? 1. There are important clinical questions that are difficult to measure in a double-blind clinical framework; the risk is that we end up optimizing what we can easily measure over what is truly important, the health of the patient. 2. It increasingly risks turning doctors into assembly-line technicians that are only there to take the indicated 'evidence-based' tests and treatments. It takes agency and decisionmaking effectively from the hands of doctors and transfers it to large research bureaucracies, which may or may not be asking the right questions. It increases the social and informational distance between the patient and the point of decision-making -- which we've seen can have disastrous consequences (for example, in planned economies), when that distance impeded the smooth flow of information. 3. It presupposes the the studies and meta-analyses in the research pipeline are a good decomposition of the current state of medical knowledge. E.g. if there's an analysis that says 'treat a person with diabetes with treatment X', then that approach would work well, regardless of the specifics of the actual patient at the clinical level. Patients don't come cleanly with a single diagnositic label; most people with chronic conditions have more than one, for example. Note that the methodology and effectiveness of Evidence-Based Medicine has itself not been subjected to rigorous large-scale scientific evaluation; we are literally being asked to take on faith that this particular 'EBC' implementation of evidence-based medicine will be better. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine#Limitations_and_criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine#Limita...
  - lern_too_spel 9y ago
    It provides a reasonable framework for testing its own efffectiveness. If you don't think it works, just do the experiment and compute the statistics.
conception 9y ago
The CDC does studies on populations though. So now they can't say if the health outcomes for those on medical entitlements are on par with private insurances. Or propose studies on learning techniques to help deal with transgender issues. This is just more of Republicans denying funding for facts they don't want to know because the answers will probably not help their agenda. Similarly to how they say the CDC can't study any gun control outcomes related to mental health or really any reason. Note: I know this is just for budget note but it's not a great direction.
grzm 9y ago
> "Are some diseases suddenly targeting people..." While perhaps belying the name, the CDC's mandate is broader than only disease, it's general public health, including, among many things, occupational safety and injury prevention. Anything which may lead too injury or death can be considered under their purview.
jwilliams 9y ago
> Political words also have no place in scientific discourse I think you're mistaking the charter and purpose of the CDC. Controlling disease has plenty of hard science -- but much of it is messy and full of human factors. That's what those words represent.
adamson 9y ago
I think you're coming into this with a lot of baggage. "Vulnerable" isn't necessarily subjective, e.g. "poor populations are vulnerable to diabetes" is a statement that evidence can be brought to bear on.
cowpig 9y ago
"The genetic diversity of the strains of these bacteria leave us vulnerable to..." Wait crap my statement was too political and subjective
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
adjkant 9y ago
* transgender > "Are some diseases suddenly targeting people based on their identified sex? If no, the CDC has no business discussing this anyways." One study the CDC works on is HIV within transgender communities. Tell me how that isn't within their scope to look at. What about any other public health issues that are more concentrated within transgender individuals? Can they not study that and try to figure out what is causing it and if things can be done?
astura 9y ago
What is a synonyms of "fetus?" Embryo only applies to a specific stage of development.

arkona 9y ago

If one word needs to be banned, it is “diversity” - an overused and meaningless term.

AckSyn 9y ago

All word of mouth based on an unnamed analyst as a brief part of a meeting. So in spite of the disturbing nature of it, I'm calling it unsubstantiated hearsay until otherwise.