Hope123
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,266
And that is what is happening here, WPI is disagreeing with the emerging consensus. It is indeed unethical to state something contrary to the consensus, unless you qualify that statement by noting that the majority of researchers disagree with your view.
Your use of the word "unethical" is different from anything I know as a scientist. Medicine has ethics....i.e. medical ethics, Hippocratic Oath.....but science doesn't really -- I haven't come across any code in my experience, formal or informal. The ethics of science if anything are more academic ethics...things like don't make up your data, don't plagiarize, be honest, etc. but that doesn't have anything to do with stating something contrary to a consensus and having to qualify it and noting others disagree with your view. If you don't have evidence to back up your assertions, people might not believe you and call you stupid. If you don't bring up the views of others, people might say your views are unbalanced and out of context. You might be called many other things but not unethical. Indeed, there is a strong tradition in academia and science in general (not so much in CFS) to challenge the status quo.
I would also add that at least in medicine, consensus statements now often contain levels of proof so users can see for themselves not only the recommendation but the type of evidence supporting that recommendation. Expert consensus is part of evidence but is ranked below not just randomized controlled trials but also observational trials, case series, etc.