• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Did those promoting PACE at the Science Media Centre follow COI guidelines?

Messages
13,774
To me it looks like the SMC has pretty tight requirements, that those whose jobs have been built upon claims about the efficacy of CBT and GET for CFS don't seem to have lived up to. I can't imagine a complaint to the SMC about this is likely to be taken very seriously though. More likely, it would be seen as evidence of harassment.

register of interests policy: guidance note for scientists


This guidance note explains why the SMC’s register of interests policy applies to certain individuals, what type of interest should be declared, when and how to declare such interests, where the potential for conflicts of interest may arise and how such conflicts will be dealt with, so they do not prejudice the activities or reputation of the SMC. Individuals should be aware that it is their personal responsibility to declare their interests.



Why do we have a register of interests policy?

Circumstances can arise where an individual’s professional/personal interests or loyalties may conflict (or be perceived to conflict) with those of the SMC remit of ensuring UK national news coverage of science, health or environment subjects are informed by the best available evidence and expertise.

We aim to avoid situations where there may be a conflict between the SMC’s interests and those of an individual, as well as being as transparent as possible about the interests of the experts we work with.



Who must complete a declaration of interests?

All experts approached by the SMC with a request for media engagement will be asked to declare their interests before taking part in a briefing or supplying a quote. A fresh declaration will be requested each time an expert is approached.



What should I declare?

Do you have any interests which might be regarded by a reasonable and objective third party as giving rise to a conflict with your role as an SMC expert in this story? These might include (but are not restricted to):

  • paid employment or self-employment
  • grant funding
  • voluntary appointments
  • memberships
  • decision-making positions
  • other financial interest


What should I do if I am unsure whether to declare a matter as an ‘interest’?

“When in doubt, declare”. Please ask yourself: “Are there any circumstances in which this interest could significantly prejudice or improperly influence your activities with the SMC, or be reasonably perceived to do so?” If the answer is “Yes” you should declare the interest.



How are interests registered?

The SMC will request a declaration each time a fresh approach to an expert is made. Declarations will be considered at the time of making and will be made available to journalists alongside quotes or at the start of a briefing. If you have recently declared your interests to us and nothing has changed, please let us know and we’ll use the same declaration as last time.

Seems like a lot of people making money from CBT/GET for CFS declared nothing when they were promoting PACE, eg:

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/e...reatments-for-chronic-fatigue-syndromeme-2-2/

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/do-the-best-treatments-for-cfs-cost-more-3/

OT: Wonder if Wessely's talk on psychological therapies for CFS to a pharmaceutical company will have done much to encourage them to invest in research?

Prof. Wessely: “I gave a non-promotional talk on psychological therapies for CFS three years ago sponsored by Jansen.”

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/e...ntidepressants-and-cbt-for-severe-depression/
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
17,824
It looks like Simon Wessely has been appointed to the board of Trustees of the Science Media Centre.

That is an appointment that will likely add more angular momentum to the SMC's spin of PACE and CBT/GET.


The current SMC board of Trustees are listed on this SMC webpage. If you look at the same webpage on the Wayback machine archive of 16 March 2015, you see that Wessely is not listed there. But look on the archive of 1 April 2015, and you see Wessely's name appear.

So it looks like he was appointed to the board of Trustees around March 2015.
 
Messages
13,774
That is interesting and odd.

I thought he'd always been heavily involved with them.

Maybe he'd stepped down for a period? [Couldn't see mention of him in earlier archived pages]

Or maybe they'd accidentally not included him, and PACE furor led to him being added?

He is listed as having been on their science advisory panel 2002-2012 here: http://powerbase.info/index.php/Science_Media_Centre That's probably what I was thinking of.

So it looks like he was just added on.

OT: Not a surprise what side of the debate Wessely was on here (from when the SMC was first being set up):

A significant minority of those consulted saw the growth of public questioning of scientific
expertise as a largely positive development and a step towards the widely held goal of
“democratising science”. Professor Ian Hargreaves, Director of the Centre for Journalism
Studies, Cardiff University, Dr Tom Shakespeare, Director of Outreach for the Policy, Ethics
and Life Sciences Research Institute, Dr Jon Turney, UCL, Hugh Aldersey-Williams, Science
Writer and Dr Nick Russell, Coordinator of the Science Communication Course, Imperial
College all felt that the decline in trust in science reflected a public who are becoming more
expert in areas of science that directly effect their lives and are no longer prepared to accept
uncritically the mainstream science view. This change in the relative balance of power
between scientists and the consumers of science was warmly welcomed as a step forward
from the times when the public were expected to have blind faith in the expert in a white coat.

However, a larger group of those consulted feel that the declining trust in and respect for
scientists is a worrying development, which can contribute to exaggerated fears that threaten
to undermine public support for scientific progress. Many pointed to the recent MMR debate
as evidence that the loss of authority by the scientific establishment should not necessarily be
welcomed.

Others felt that the declining trust in scientific expertise was also an area of concern.
Professor Simon Wessely, Professor of Epidemiological and Liaison Psychiatry, Kings
College, echoed the views of many when he said, “The current trend towards equating all
sources of knowledge as of equal value is very dangerous. We need to defend scientific
expertise as a basis for sound policy decisions.” Lord David Sainsbury, Parliamentary Under
Secretary of State for Science and Lord Taverne argued that a greater understanding of
science amongst the public should not imply a watering down of scientific expertise. Tony
Gilland, Science Specialist at the Institute of Ideas, argued that scientists need to confront this
issue head on and mount a more aggressive defence of expertise or risk losing more authority
in society.

The latter group tended to view the role of the SMC as working with scientists to help win
back public trust and confidence in science.

www.sciencemediacentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Science-Media-Centre-consultation-report.pdf
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
17,824
He is listed as having been on their science advisory panel 2002-2012 here: http://powerbase.info/index.php/Science_Media_Centre That's probably what I was thinking of.

Yes, I was also aware of that role: Wessely is listed as being on the science advisory panel of the SMC in this 2002 SMC document. But if you Google search the SMC website, you do not find any other documents with his name in them. So it looks like he had a science advisory panel role back in 2002. Then this new role in 2015 as a Trustee.
 
Messages
13,774
He might have been on the science advisory committee for some time... it was only wound up in 2012. I think that it was around 2012 that I saw he was officially involved with the SMC.
 

TiredSam

The wise nematode hibernates
Messages
2,677
Location
Germany
Others felt that the declining trust in scientific expertise was also an area of concern.
Professor Simon Wessely, Professor of Epidemiological and Liaison Psychiatry, Kings
College, echoed the views of many when he said, “The current trend towards equating all
sources of knowledge as of equal value is very dangerous. We need to defend scientific
expertise as a basis for sound policy decisions.”

Does this man's wormery know no bounds? Is this current trend he's just invented as a distraction to justify his position of authority really a thing? Do members of PR, informed patients and people who just like looking stuff up and informing themselves really equate all sources of knowledge as of equal value? The main problem for PWME as I see it is the insistence by Sir Simon and his ilk that their psychoquackery be equated as of equal value with biomedical research.
 
Messages
2,087
It looks like Simon Wessely has been appointed to the board of Trustees of the Science Media Centre.

That is an appointment that will likely add more angular momentum to the SMC's spin of PACE and CBT/GET.

I'm sure it's all part of a grand plan he has. He knows the writing is on the wall for his theories and he wants to control exactly how the press find out that his career is based on nothing.
 

A.B.

Senior Member
Messages
3,780
The main problem for PWME as I see it is the insistence by Sir Simon and his ilk that their psychoquackery be equated as of equal value with biomedical research.

They want an environment where the expert is always right, even without any evidence. They need this to continue promoting their various pseudoscientific ideas that don't stand up to even superficial scrutiny.
 

TiredSam

The wise nematode hibernates
Messages
2,677
Location
Germany
They want an environment where the expert is always right, even without any evidence. They need this to continue promoting their various pseudoscientific ideas that don't stand up to even superficial scrutiny.
Indeed. All you have to do is replace the word "expertise" with "authority" in his quote to see what he's really up to.
 

SilverbladeTE

Senior Member
Messages
3,043
Location
Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
I'm sure it's all part of a grand plan he has. He knows the writing is on the wall for his theories and he wants to control exactly how the press find out that his career is based on nothing.

but it also means he's put himself at the head, he wallowed in the glory and now, his ego and greed have lead as the saying goes:
his trousers are around his ankles, and his c*ck is on the chopping block!

evil-smiley.gif