Are open letters by scientists worth the paper they’re written on?
by Michael Cook | 4 Oct 2020 |
In late September a number of scientists wrote an open letter to the chief medical officers in the UK urging them to stay the course in suppressing the coronavirus across the whole population and not to rely upon herd immunity. A few days later this was followed by an open letter to Prime Minister Boris Johnson from a different group of scientists urging him not to impose a second lockdown.
Enough already! with these Covid-19 open letters, writes renowned Stanford epidemiologist John P.A. Ioannidis in a BMJ blog. “Debating ethical and social issues is the right of every citizen, including scientists,” he writes. “A collateral damage, however, is when these documents are aimed to prove or disprove scientific positions.”
Scientific positions are debated on social media, where they are distorted and misrepresented:
most importantly, petitions cannot and should not be used as a means to prove that the positions of the signatories are scientifically correct. As it has been previously observed, this is a fallacy, an argumentum ad populum, implying that the larger the number of scientists who sign, the more valid their scientific positions are. Vote counting is a faulty method of scientific inference. Science is replete [with] situations where vehement majorities have held wrong beliefs.
He gives seven reasons why he believes that open letters are a bad idea and concludes: “Scientific truth is not an issue of zealotry and is not decided by the bulk of signatories.”
Michael Cook is editor of BioEdge
These are strange, strange times. Today I read an editorial in The New York Times headed, “Get Well, Mr. President”. I don’t recall ever reading words of personal concern like this before in the Times. It was very touching.
But, of course, the editorial’s theme was not only wishing him and the First Lady well, but demanding complete transparency about his health now that he has been infected with the coronavirus. We’ll be hearing a lot more about every detail of Mr Trump’s life in the next few days.
Speaking of which, I shall be taking a brief holiday this week. The next BioEdge newsletter will be on October 18.
Cheers,
Michael Cook
Editor
But, of course, the editorial’s theme was not only wishing him and the First Lady well, but demanding complete transparency about his health now that he has been infected with the coronavirus. We’ll be hearing a lot more about every detail of Mr Trump’s life in the next few days.
Speaking of which, I shall be taking a brief holiday this week. The next BioEdge newsletter will be on October 18.
Cheers,
Michael Cook
Editor
by Michael Cook | Oct 04, 2020
Should he have access to experimental medicines?by Michael Cook | Oct 04, 2020
New Zealand, Massachusetts, Portugal, Austria, Ireland, Tasmaniaby Michael Cook | Oct 04, 2020
Britain’s biggest serial killer was a family doctorby Michael Cook | Oct 04, 2020
“People like me are endangered and now they want to make me extinct.”by Michael Cook | Oct 04, 2020
Stanford epidemiologist John P.A. Ioannides says no.by Michael Cook | Oct 04, 2020
The British Pregnancy Advisory Service is going to open an IVF clinicby Michael Cook | Oct 04, 2020
California Institute for Regenerative Medicine goes back to the votersby Michael Cook | Oct 04, 2020
Would the founder of utilitarianism support Covid-19 directives? BioEdge
L1, Unit 7, 11 Lord Street · Botany, NSW 2019 · Australia
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
Mobile: 0422-691-615
.png)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario