How Important are Scientists and Studies in Medical Practice?
http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-15/ns_leavitt.html-----------------------
This was published two and a half years ago.
Mr. Leavitt eloquently expresses the valid concerns social scientists have had about society's emphasis on, and use of, scientists and scientific studies for many years. I believe anyone who advocates EBM and the scientific method in medicine must understand the points made in the article. I spent the last several years analyzing medical technologies for potential health insurance coverage.
I learned to apply the analysis techniques used to assess scientific reports, including my own biases relative to my employment and personal values. Still, I became pretty convinced that most published studies involve elaborate tactics to lure investors, sell aproduct, or collect more funding. I think anyone who has followed the popular scientific studies recently could be disheartened at their futility in establishing convincing credibility relative to the comparative safety and efficacy of any medical technology. From COX-2 inhibitor studies to North Korean cloning reports, what can we believe when "researchers have complex motives."
So, what is the harm in attempting to de-emphasize oursociety's apparent worship of scientists and scientific studies? The harm comes when we recognize what fills in the void demanded by a society that wants medical answers. Anarchy is seldom the best solution to the miss-application of laws.
The only other choice we have is to recognize the faults in our current use of scientists and scientific studies as demonstrated, understand the limitations of double-blind RCT's and EBM, and educate those around us and advocate for public policy in the ideal and value that the scientific method promises. Can "intelligent laypeople...make informed judgments about treatments administered to them and people they know"? Absolutely, and they should. But on the condition that "intelligent" people are those that understand the degree of credibility of their own decision, which can only be known if they understand their own biases, values, and limitations of knowledge in the subject matter - and bit of human psychology. I believe this is within the capacity of the common"intelligent" layperson; that self-discovery can be an important part of achieving wellness. "Empowerment" is the new buzz-word of our day.
"Methodological concerns: Single studies"
"Methodological concerns: Publication bias"
"Scientific fraud"
"Generalizability of results"
"The media"
These are the things all of us should keep in mind when we crack open JAMA, the health section of the newspaper, or hear a health advertisement.
nawledge
This was published two and a half years ago.
Mr. Leavitt eloquently expresses the valid concerns social scientists have had about society's emphasis on, and use of, scientists and scientific studies for many years. I believe anyone who advocates EBM and the scientific method in medicine must understand the points made in the article. I spent the last several years analyzing medical technologies for potential health insurance coverage.
I learned to apply the analysis techniques used to assess scientific reports, including my own biases relative to my employment and personal values. Still, I became pretty convinced that most published studies involve elaborate tactics to lure investors, sell aproduct, or collect more funding. I think anyone who has followed the popular scientific studies recently could be disheartened at their futility in establishing convincing credibility relative to the comparative safety and efficacy of any medical technology. From COX-2 inhibitor studies to North Korean cloning reports, what can we believe when "researchers have complex motives."
So, what is the harm in attempting to de-emphasize oursociety's apparent worship of scientists and scientific studies? The harm comes when we recognize what fills in the void demanded by a society that wants medical answers. Anarchy is seldom the best solution to the miss-application of laws.
The only other choice we have is to recognize the faults in our current use of scientists and scientific studies as demonstrated, understand the limitations of double-blind RCT's and EBM, and educate those around us and advocate for public policy in the ideal and value that the scientific method promises. Can "intelligent laypeople...make informed judgments about treatments administered to them and people they know"? Absolutely, and they should. But on the condition that "intelligent" people are those that understand the degree of credibility of their own decision, which can only be known if they understand their own biases, values, and limitations of knowledge in the subject matter - and bit of human psychology. I believe this is within the capacity of the common"intelligent" layperson; that self-discovery can be an important part of achieving wellness. "Empowerment" is the new buzz-word of our day.
"Methodological concerns: Single studies"
"Methodological concerns: Publication bias"
"Scientific fraud"
"Generalizability of results"
"The media"
These are the things all of us should keep in mind when we crack open JAMA, the health section of the newspaper, or hear a health advertisement.
nawledge
posted by nawledge at
9:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home