Conversation

Imagine doing research in a field where there's 100s of people like this. Meanwhile, the same sort of people also constantly tell you there is no research suppression, you're just being paranoid. #academicfreedom twitter.com/StevePittelli/ archive.ph/sbmPh

Quote Tweet

Steve Pittelli, MD

@StevePittelli

Dec 30, 2019

I recently wrote to the UK Biobank (haven’t heard back, yet) re: the study below and requested that the authors of that study be prevented from utilizing the UK Biobank in any future studies. My letter here: bit.ly/36eRGUc Thread… 1/ nature.com/articles/s4146

Show this thread

Replying to

These sorts of people? Do you think it’s okay to use a false premise to apply for the use of data? Just make up whatever bogus health issue, then do the study you wanted to do and knew was too sketchy to admit up front? I think I know your answer.

Replying to

and

The concept of studies "too sketchy to do" is horrifying to me. Like, we're drawing lines around what facts are ok to know and others that aren't.

Replying to

and

Facts? Phrenology was once facts. Eugenics was once facts. This is the same thing in modern form.

Replying to

and

Sure, some things we used to believe turned out to be wrong. But this isn't just saying "hey that's wrong", this is saying "we're not allowed to ask this question", which is extremely different

6:12 PM · Jan 2, 2020

Replying to

and

They didn’t just turn out to be wrong, for goodness sake. They had huge consequences. They were based on prejudices from the beginning and “science” was the veneer. This is no different.

Replying to

and

A lot of those consequences came from a culture of not being allowed to ask questions

Show replies

Replying to

and

This particular research question is quite politically correct. It's just examining genetic causes of income inequality. I think large majority of the population would accept that there is some genetic causation of income differences, related to intelligence and laziness.

Show replies