|
Questions to Ask
Scientific Authority
A spotlight focuses on the
fraud committed by South Korean scientist
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182344,00.html
Hwang Woo-suk who claimed to have created human
cells from cloned embryos. Less attention centers
on scientist www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1986322,00.html
Miodrag Stojkovic who was instrumental in cloning
the first human embryo in Britain. Stojkovic
recently resigned from his celebrated post at
Newcastle University. Now doing research in Spain,
he is leveling accusations of scientific
impropriety toward former colleagues.
Stem cell research may be
the most sensational and explosive scientific
development of recent years. But the most heralded
breakthrough was a massive fraud; another has
prompted a pioneering scientist to cry "foul." It
becomes important to remember the admonition,
'Question Authority.'
Medical research is an
arcane mystery to lay people, like me, who must
rely to an uncomfortable degree upon expert
opinions. We live under the medical and political
policies that can often proceed from research. Our
hopes hinge on technologies like stem cell research
which may point to cures for diabetes or
Alzheimer's. Our fear creates opportunities for
modern versions of snake-oil remedies: for example,
the "genetic tests" sold on the Internet which
allegedly measure the risk of developing diseases
but which scientists call www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article/0,,1697961,00.html
a "waste of money."
Ideally, an educated media
asks the skeptical questions that protect public
interest. That ideal is rare. And, so, 'Question
Authority' becomes personal responsibility. But
which questions should be asked?
The facts of the two
controversies provide some guidance.Hwang was a
case of outright fraud but Stojkovic's research has
not been discredited. Rather, his allegations
concern misconduct in how research has been
credited and presented. One criticism: the
university ignored sound scientific practice by
announcing a breakthrough to the press before peer
review had been conducted. The timing seemed
designed to steal publicity from the then-lauded
Hwang whose paper hit the press at the same
moment.
The respected weekly
journal of science Nature responded with
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7042/full/435538a.html
an editorial (June 2, 2005) entitled "Too much, too
soon: How not to promote your latest research
findings in the media." Key to Nature's
condemnation was the fact that a "full research
paper is kept confidential until it is accepted and
published" which meant that the media did not have
access either to the Newcastle team's data or to an
informed review. They were merely given conclusions
with which to run.
Stojkovic, who co-operated
with the press announcement, now claims to have
been blind-sided by the university.
Whatever the truth,
commonsense questions should be asked Hwang, the
Newcastle team and every other
researcher.
The first question
pertains to the nature of any claim. Are the
results `statistical' or do they proceed from an
unambiguous 'yes/no' experiment?
Statistical results
generally involve observing data from which
correlations can be drawn to indicate possible
cause-and-effect. An example is the much-acclaimed
research on mouth cancer for which www.wwaytv3.com/Global/story.asp?S=4416854&nav=menu70_8
Dr. Jon Sudbo of the Norwegian Radium Hospital
observed a database of 908 participants. Sudbo has
www.health24.com/news/General_health/1-915,34436.asp
admitted to fabricating his database. Many
questions addressed to statistical studies involve
little more than closely analyzing the specifics of
the data. For example, when 250 of the 908 people
studied by Sudbo shared the same birth date, a red
flag should have fluttered.
Results, such as those
claimed by Hwang and the Newcastle team, are
'yes/no.' That is to say, the cells and embryos
were either cloned in the manner indicated, or not.
The questions addressed to 'yes/no' experiments may
be more fundamental than those addressed to
statistical claims but all research should be able
to answer them. Those questions include:
Is the report, including
all data and methodology, available for
examination? If not, then the researcher is asking
you to accept his word for the findings.
What is the researcher's
reputation? More credibility should be accorded to
the claims of a scientist with a sound track record
than to an unknown factor who comes out of
nowhere.
Who funds the research? A
questionable source of money does not invalidate
research but public skepticism should sharpen if
the funder stands to profit from a specific finding
and, indeed, that finding results.
Have the findings been
independently verified? Claims should be
sufficiently documented to allow replication.
(Unfortunately non-scientific concerns, like
patents, sometimes interfere with
disclosure.)
Does the claim contradict
previous data? A breakthrough that achieves a
difficult result is qualitatively different than
one that achieves a result previously believed
impossible. A 'paradigm shift' demands a high
degree of proof because it involves invalidating
previous findings.
Does the claim include
policy recommendations or changes in law? Research
that includes a political agenda is more likely to
express the researcher's personal beliefs than work
that merely states data and findings.
What is the response of
the scientific community?
Where was the research
published? The differing levels of prestige for
scientific journals has been quantified in terms of
their en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_Factor
"impact factor." If a researcher publishes in a low
impact journal, then asking 'why' becomes
appropriate.
The preceding questions do
not guarantee that fraudulent or incompetent work
will be detected. For example, Hwang's work was
heralded by the prestigious news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4608352.stm
Science. Sudbo's work was published in both the New
England Journal of Medicine (April 2004) and the
Journal of Clinical Oncology (March 2005). The
scientific community, like the media, is simply not
doing its job.
Thus, asking these
questions becomes more necessary. The claims of
scientific authority should receive the same
skepticism that usually greets similarly bold
claims of political authority. Both impact your
life and are your business.
©2010, Wendy
McElroy
* * *
Wendy
McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com
and a research fellow for The Independent Institute
in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of
many books and articles, including her latest book,
Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the
21st Century. She lives with her husband in
Canada. E-Mail.
Also, see her daily blog at www.zetetics.com/mac
Contact
Us |
Disclaimer
| Privacy
Statement
Menstuff®
Directory
Menstuff® is a registered trademark of Gordon
Clay
©1996-2023, Gordon Clay
|
