3 ms·

>As always, he has a right to his political opinions like everyone else; the issue is that a prestigious scientific journal is used to push culture war politics

by yyyk 3y ago

>As always, he has a right to his political opinions like everyone else; the issue is that a prestigious scientific journal is used to push culture war politics. This is the Lancet, there's a long history of the Lancet being lax in reviewing articles that push favoured positions. Recently it has been during COVID[0], but one can recall incidents all the way up to the original MMR 'study'. The problem here is that the Lancet is still considered prestigious in certain quarters where it should be suspect. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/10/surgisphere-sapan-desai-lancet-study-hydroxychloroquine-mass-audit-scientific-papers https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/10/surgisphere-sa... That the position the study pushed happened to be correct does not negate the scientific misconduct.

jruohonen 3y ago
Well as for retractions and such, these mistakes happen in all journals. But the real issue is the politics. I think The Spectator had a quite neutral take on this: https://thespectator.com/topic/lancet-becoming-political/ https://thespectator.com/topic/lancet-becoming-political/ In my opinion this kind of activity is detrimental for the trust in science and the legitimacy of it. If he wants to engage in politics, he should write op-ends in newspapers like everyone else with a political agenda.
- yyyk 3y ago
  In the Lancet's case, it has always been politics. For example, the Iraq war study they published was utter bunk on multiple levels***, and a normal review would have caught that. The politics is often defencible or at least debatable, the problem is that the Lancet just doesn't hold studies that support the editor's already-decided-upon positions to much if any scrutiny... ** A comparison being centered on wartorn Sunni areas which were in power before the war, not being representative of the other areas; A prewar death rate half that of any other independent count; Ignoring the way the secret jail system worked before the war, etc.

by yyyk 3y ago

jruohonen 3y ago

Well as for retractions and such, these mistakes happen in all journals. But the real issue is the politics. I think The Spectator had a quite neutral take on this: https://thespectator.com/topic/lancet-becoming-political/ https://thespectator.com/topic/lancet-becoming-political/ In my opinion this kind of activity is detrimental for the trust in science and the legitimacy of it. If he wants to engage in politics, he should write op-ends in newspapers like everyone else with a political agenda.

yyyk 3y ago
In the Lancet's case, it has always been politics. For example, the Iraq war study they published was utter bunk on multiple levels***, and a normal review would have caught that. The politics is often defencible or at least debatable, the problem is that the Lancet just doesn't hold studies that support the editor's already-decided-upon positions to much if any scrutiny... ** A comparison being centered on wartorn Sunni areas which were in power before the war, not being representative of the other areas; A prewar death rate half that of any other independent count; Ignoring the way the secret jail system worked before the war, etc.