Why, such a thing is hard to believe; (link fixed!)
...the UK’s General Medical Council has found that Andrew Wakefield — the founder of the modern antivaccination movement — acted "dishonestly and irresponsibly" when doing the research that led him to conclude that vaccinations were linked with autism.
Despite this and other sarcastic headlines, I'm not suggesting all scientists are unethical and/or incompetent. But I do believe peer review systems (not to mention, hiring standards) are failing us when those who engage in political activism are permitted to even remain within the walls of research institutions.
I was going to write that the bullying, obfuscation, data manipulation, public activism (and shoddy science journalism) we've witnessed in the name of "climate" research is just the tip of the iceberg, but that's not quite accurate. It's more like a template.
And how about those pushing the H!N! vaccine?Fear mongering working both ends of the spectrum without research to back their claims.
I wonder if his defence will be that cell phone radiation was making him go crazy?
So he's qualified to a Climate Scientologist as well as a physician.
Cool . . . another science criminal.
My brother is an MD who edits, and occasionally writes in, a Canadian medical periodical. Interestingly, every contributing author has a preface to indicate whether they've ever received money/funding from corporate, i.e., Pharma, interests. Just one check I suppose, but at least it's something.
We need to break the leftist stranglehold on academia where they hire mostly like-minded people to join their club. Then they dominate university committees, control refereed journals. the faculty senates, and feed the pipeline into university administration. From that fortress, they use university money to subsidize research and promote books they like. Students are then treated as ideological targets for indoctrination - a captive audience.
It's time to kill Chicken Little.
It's more like a template.
Indeed. It annoyed me in labs that more emphasis was put on getting the right results than in paying meticulous attention
to the steps of the experiment and the accurate recording of the results.
Wired had a very interesting article on how preconception affects researchers and the apparent lack of will or emphasis on following up unusual results.
Some obscure bureaucrats prosecuting some obscure scientist. Okay, but after seeing countless rigged investigation manipulated to convict or exonerate, I just won't come out to scare the wolves away.
Normal peer review is not what most people think it is. Normal peer review does not involve fellow researchers repeating experiments or computations, or examining the raw data. That would require a massive outlay of time.
Instead, normal peer review involves reading the submitted paper to ensure that it's well written and structured, relevant, clear, the conclusions well supported, the diagrams properly labelled, and in general follows established scientific standards. There's not much else a peer reviewer can do.
In other words, even with peer review, the system is based on the assumption that researchers conduct themselves with honesty and integrity. And thus a clever charlatan can get away with fraudulent work, at least for a time.
And this is probably satisfactory for most journals. But in those areas which are particularly critical - where the public health or billions of dollars are at stake, for instance - we need a much higher level of peer review, one where all data, procedures, and software are made public and closely scrutinized, so that peer reviewers can, at least selectively, audit and replicate the authors' findings.
POWInCA:
It's true that in the humanities the left does indeed have a stranglehold on academia. In the sciences, however, I don't think they do. I suspect that most university scientists just keep their head down and mouth shut when it comes to politics.
For many scientists, salary is linked to funding. I don't know if we should be surprised to find out that 100% are not totally altruistic.
If scientists touch hot buttons - they are guaranteed of funding is their research becomes the flavour of the moment.
The worrisome thing is - what else is out there???
Rabbit, I'd like to agree but I cannot.
The left is slowly finding their way into the sciences and engineering as well.
Standard signs that the left is encroaching include:
- much lower standards for passing courses
- airy fairy teaching methods
- fluffy criteria for gaining entry into programs
- female-only scholarships
- simplification of course material so that politically correct objectives can be met
- insane amounts of foreign graduate students
- funding targeted for topics such as global warming, sustainable development, ...
- professors that live in fear of challenging students because students will hammer them on course evaluations (this can be traced directly to the radical lefty movements in the 60's)
- etc.
Universities are not what they used to be, and although I want my kids to attend university, my advice to them will be "get in and get out as fast as you can".
"It's more like a template."
Yes. Its standard operating procedure for Leftist activists in all areas of endeavor. A good way to decide if some issue is being manufactured is to look for Lefty SOP in the back room. Works every time, and it is easier than following money through shells and whatnot.
As Kate keeps hitting home, its not about climate and never was.
So whenever you find this kind of activity in your personal space, CRUSH IT. You'll be doing yourself and everyone else a favor.
Interesting to see Osama Bin Laden has jumped on board the global warming bandwagon, somewhat belatedly. I guess the AGW people were saving their real stars for the last.
Good company for David Suzuki and Al Gore.
Wakefield's research was disproven a long time ago and the original authors of the study that initially linked mmr vaccination with autism have long since recanted their views. I, however, am more than happy with any news coverage that lays to rest this ridiculous myth and helps parents feel safe in vaccinating their children against disease. The Jenny McCarthy's and Oprah Winfrey's of the world, in an attempt to 'save' children from a fictitious 'cause' of autism, have instead doomed tens of thousands of little ones to sickness and even death from diseases that could have easily been prevented with one or two little shots. It's sad, and a little terrifying, how much power these women have.
I'm glad that I no longer have to vaccinate kids where I practice (done at the local health unit) as in Vancouver any vaccination would first require 15 minutes of talking to the parents who were agonizing about whether they should vaccinate their kids and give them autism or not have them vaccinated. I don't think the medical council's condemnation is going to have much effect on parents who still believe that vaccination is evil. What mystifies me is why they still persist in covering their kids head to toe with sunscreen which is much more strongly associated with autism than MMR vaccine. It's an interesting association but no-one has yet done the study to see if kids supplemented with high dose vitamin D3 from birth have lower rates of autism than their UV deprived control group.
The MMR vaccine doesn't cause autism. Most of the associations between MMR and autism have the scientific validity of the "vodka allergies" I see; "doc I know I'm really allergic to vodka because when I chugged a 26er of the stuff I puked my guts out"
Wakefield makes it difficult for those physicians who aren't automatically supportive over every new vaccine. I don't recommend varicella zoster vaccine nor do I recommend HPV vaccine as I think these vaccines are designed primarily to enhance drug company profits.
After having a severe personal reaction to the squalene adjuvented H1N1 vaccine I did a bit of research on vaccines and autoimmunity and was quite surprised what I found. There is a significant risk to any vaccine which is downplayed dramatically by vaccine advocates. In the case of polio or tetanus vaccines the benefits outweigh the risks by such a huge margin that no sane person would question the need for vaccination. In the case of HPV vaccine, one is assuming that the theoretical benefit of reducing cervical cancer, which is already decreasing in prevalence, outweighs the real risk of causing lupus or some other autoimmune disease in the future. We have programs in place to screen women for cervical cancer and they work and right now early cervical cancer is virtually 100% curable but lupus is not.
Glad to hear some well-voiced thoughts, Loki, especially re H1N1 and HPV vaccines, which do not meet my risk-reward criteria.
It's generally heretical to voice any hesitation regarding vaccination, seemingly even in many right/libertarian circles (the left/center will eat you alive, never a good sign if you ask me), but I suspect the more that people reject dogma and do some research themselves (as happened with AGW) the more these foregone conclusions will become suspect.
Childhood vaccines have a proven efficacy. We're alive because of them. If someone is really concerned, their best bet is simply to speak with their family doctors, not quacks or celebrities.
Just my thoughts.
Erik @ 11:56 said "The worrisome thing is - what else is out there???". Scary isn't it.
Thank you loki for your thoughts on these topics.
For those of you trying to find the right story, the working URL is here:
http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/28/researcher-who-sparked-the-vac
Dr. Tim Ball has more on Andrew Weaver of IPPC fame.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/19458
"Weaver was involved with IPCC from the start and attacked anyone who raised questions. I was invited to his office in the late 1990s after writing a letter to the Times Colonist. He realized someone was in town who knew about climate......
....Within a few minutes I knew from 28 years of teaching and publishing that he knew very little about climate. He presented himself as a climatologist but was a computer modeler..."
And for those of us in British Columbia, it will be one more stone in the shoe to hear that Andrew Weaver has been on Gordon Campbell's 'Climate Action Team', which installed the carbon tax.
http://www.climateactionsecretariat.gov.bc.ca/cat/members.html
Another report you might want to bookmark to see what Campbell and the Weaver group have in store for us:
http://www.climateactionsecretariat.gov.bc.ca/attachment/CAT_FINAL_REPORT_July_23_2008.pdf
By the way, page four (4) of this report will intrigue those who have been following the saga of weather stations collecting temperatures from paved locations.
Would school rooftops be any more suitable, or useful, maybe?
Weaver is involved in a project with youngsters from K-grade 12, tying his work with the University if Victoria to local schools and the collection of weather data.
Weaver's project does not stop with weather, as you will see in this report.
http://www.victoriaweather.ca/resources/info/2006CMOSBulletin.pdf
"What became clear to us was that collecting the variety of ideas together in one place and
then making them available to all educators in the region should be a high priority to maximize
the use of the stations...."
"....A high priority is also the creation of additional teaching kits and activities for other grade levels.
"....It is hoped that archived data, currently being used by graduate and undergraduate students at the University of Victoria,......"
Tentacles....