4 ms·
The conflict of interest part is fair. The "Note that the senior author Bhattacharya and of course Ionnadis were advancing this theory before data collection b
by pacala 6y ago
The conflict of interest part is fair.
The "Note that the senior author Bhattacharya and of course Ionnadis were advancing this theory before data collection began" is not. That's how science is done: you advance a theory, then you conduct experiments to validate / invalidate the theory.
- strangeloops85 6y agoIt's one thing to advance a theory in academic papers during normal times. It's another to pen widely-read op-eds advancing said theories in the middle of a pandemic. Their theory and op-eds have already, and are, influencing policy - and it's clear they want to influence policy. Hence, it merits more scrutiny than the average study. These results are being used by policymakers to make decisions - skepticism and criticism is most definitely warranted. I'm in no position to conduct studies, though I am certainly doing things in my wheelhouse to help. Other studies will clear up matters, but results may be weeks away. And these results may be used to end quarantines in the intervening time.
- mediaman 6y agoI think there's a difference between postulating a hypothesis, and then testing it, which is what I believe you're referring to, versus going around advocating a particular position as being true and then "testing" it. When people are strong advocates of a particular position, they tend to find ways to design or process experimental data in ways that support that position. The ways in which bias can seep into the experiment are not always easy for outsiders to see. So it comes down to whether their "advancing this theory" went beyond what a reasonable scientist would do in postulating a hypothesis that needs testing.