tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2308282620289958037.post2290933004363455697..comments2023-08-08T08:41:19.586-04:00Comments on The Medical Contrarian: Science, Skepticism, and AdvocacyThe Medical Contrarianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09240492315542223258noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2308282620289958037.post-2757822387051574962010-09-12T10:18:01.379-04:002010-09-12T10:18:01.379-04:00Thank you for your comments, insightful as always....Thank you for your comments, insightful as always. It would be great if personal integrity could function as such a firewall. However, from a practical viewpoint, how does that work? When a scientist submits a paper for publication, peer review often is merciless about the entry of speculation into the manuscript(and it should be!), However, the scientist as the advocate is encouraged to speculate and there is no clear line made to where the science stops and the speculation begins. <br /><br />The more the conflate what is science and what are our opinions based upon speculation, the more we will lose the public trust.The Medical Contrarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09240492315542223258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2308282620289958037.post-85023846722375630352010-09-11T18:42:39.144-04:002010-09-11T18:42:39.144-04:00Slight disagreement here. I think it's proper...Slight disagreement here. I think it's proper for scientists, and even physicians, to testify and advocate. Personal integrity should be the firewall that separates science from opinions and personal agendas. Interesting post.Michael Kirsch, M.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07555280388086931097noreply@blogger.com