3 ms·
It sounds a lot like the ancient astronomers couching their studies in something like bringing glory to god for his masterful clockwork or the like. See Coperni
by jvanderbot 5y ago
It sounds a lot like the ancient astronomers couching their studies in something like bringing glory to god for his masterful clockwork or the like. See Copernicus in On the Shoulders of Giants. Really eye opening how many rhetorical back-flips they did even as they introduced the sun-centered solar system that they personally believed in.
OP seems to push the idea that we could have trusted this study, even if it was funded by industry and run by a professor with cushy ties to that industry.
- mrpf1ster 5y agoDid you not read the whole article? The author explains why his defense of this study and the players involved is wrong, and why they are "furious about every aspect of this story"
- jvanderbot 5y agoI did. I had trouble editing my comment. In the end, they do propose that it would have been valuable to continue with the study, and others like it, provided many changes were made: ```Sixth, in the final review, the NIH made no attempt at cost/benefit analysis. Their final report is a fair summary of the problems with the trial. But it doesn’t consider the information that was lost by cancellation, or the fact that that there was little cost to taxpayers. (Though Collins’ letter to Senator Grassley reveals the NIH did pay around $4 million out of pocket.) Could a different principal investigator be put in charge? Could the study design be modified to address the concerns? Could the monitoring bodies have been strengthened so people could trust the results? Maybe the trial was unsalvageable, but it’s telling that the NIH didn’t bother to make that argument.```