Mark is apparently a political hack with an administrator job. Any "actual" scientist knows what you and James and Helen did was extremely valuable.
-
-
Replying to @PsychPLockwood @peterboghossian
I'm a scientist, and I "know" no such thing. I also know that violating human subjects research violations is a very serious matter.
7 replies 0 retweets 49 likes -
-
Replying to @PsychPLockwood @peterboghossian
The fact that no one was harmed was probably one reason why Peter got off so easily. Really, it's no big deal to take the human subjects research training. I do it every few years, and grumble about it, like most academic physicians.
4 replies 0 retweets 26 likes -
I disagree. Several people were harmed, peer reviewers time wasted, they were subjected to ridicule because people apparently don’t understand peer review does not detect fraud, finally the structure was shoddy, not systematic and unsupervised with a clear ideologic agenda.
3 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
Who was harmed? I'm happy to help them out pro Bono if they're struggling. Peer reviewers time was wasted. They earned the ridicule by not reading though.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Wasting people’s time is harmful. The reviewers did read carfeully and many sample studies were rejected. Ridiculing people is harmful. Blaming peer reviewers for not detecting fraud is also harmful and wrong. Peer review is not designed for, and poor at, fraud detection.
4 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
OK, you've convinced me. I remember in particular one graduate student who spent a lot of time seriously reviewing one of the papers. That's effort taken away from his graduate studies to no good end. The harm might me small, but its harm.
3 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Then that gets us into an ethical Grey area. What level of harm is unacceptable? In fact, how do systems grow without harm or destruction. Maybe as physicians you can correct me, but isn't destruction necessary for growth?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
That's why we have IRBs to oversee human subjects research, because investigators are to invested in their projects to be reasonable judges of harm.
4 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
Too invested in their projects.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.