In a message dated 7/5/01 7:36:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<<
> I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility that the nuclear lobby had
> something to do with it. If the research was done by an independent
> organization, I'd consider the outcome scientifically sound. If however
the
> research was done by an organization that has close relations with the
> nuclear lobby, or by the nuclear power company itself, I wouldn't be so
> trusting.
>>
There is always the possibility of a potential conflict of interest.
Inevitably the experts in specialized fields come from or consult for the
government or the industry. You can't be in a field and not deal with the
commercial and regulatory agencies in that field. I am a neuroradiologist,
from time to time I am asked and paid by the makers of MR scanners and other
peripheral equipment to consult on the future directions for equipment
manufactor. I have also served as a consultant to the NIH in making decisions
about grants. I am my colleagues have received grants from both industry and
the goverment to do research. Does this taint my opinion about matters
concerning say MR safety? In fact, if someone has no association with the
nuclear industry or the government they are more likely than not, amatuers or
kranks.
I try to be as honest as I can be. My colleagues do the same. The
professional organizations we work for (I assume this holds true for other
scientific fields) require that we disclose all financial data that could
imply a conflict and we recurse ourselves when conflicts exist. Scientists
are no more or less noble than other professions. So ask yourself how you or
one of your friends would behave. Would you knowingly publish data that was
wrong and potentially harmful? I don't think so. Grant the scientists the
same humanity.
It is important to understand that the answers to these questions lie within
statistical studies and experts can do have honest differences on the
interpretation of the same data set. As Steven Pinker likes to say humans
are bad natural statisticians. Let me give you an example: Which of these
statements is more impressive.
1) there was three times the expected rate of a specific cancer in a small
town of 1000 for three consecutive years
2) There were three additional cancers per 100,000 lives in one year in a
population of 3,000,000.
Most of us would think that statement one had to be correct and important but
in fact it is impossible to tell which (if either statement) is more likely
to be a true effect and which is likely to be a chance phenomena. It depends
on the endogenous rate of the cancer under question, the nature of the
population etc. If you have to choose betweent the two choose the large
sample. Think about it this way. You flip a coin 10 times and it comes up
head 9 times. Is that luck or is the coin rigged. Almost certainly luck. Flip
a coin 10,000,000,000 times and there is a difference of 8 (same as above).
The percent difference between the two numbers is essentially non-existent
but you can bet dollars to donuts that it is a real effect.
