Kati
Patient in training
- Messages
- 5,497
Should authors declare a conflict of interest because they suffer from the illness they are writing about?
Link to blogpost: https://www.coyneoftherealm.com/blo...uffer-from-the-illness-they-are-writing-about
This blogpost discusses a request from Pace trial author Sharpe, White and Chalder regarding Keith Geraghty's paper in BMJ:
Much more at James'blogpost. Leave comments.
Twitter is fairly active in that regards:
Link to blogpost: https://www.coyneoftherealm.com/blo...uffer-from-the-illness-they-are-writing-about
This blogpost discusses a request from Pace trial author Sharpe, White and Chalder regarding Keith Geraghty's paper in BMJ:
Dear Dr Marks,
We were surprised and alarmed to read the on-line editorial by Dr Geraghty, published on Monday in the Journal of Health Psychology. http://m.hpq.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/10/27/1359105316675213.full.pdf
While we would support robust criticisms of science and believe people are entitled to their opinions, we were more than surprised by the personal criticisms made in the piece, which were often unsubstantiated. We do not believe that fellow scientists should indulge in ad hominem attacks and innuendos. For instance, Geraghty wrote ” However, there are accepted scientific procedures and standards that appear to have been neglected, or bypassed, by the PACE Trial team. Their actions have arguably caused distress to patients, added a million pounds of additional costs to a publically funded trial and have left us with two versions of ‘truth’ concerning the trial’s findings – the published analysis versus the recent re-analysis.” Where is the evidence for these statements?
Therefore we ask you:
We look forward to your early reply.
- To revise the piece in order to remove all the personal attacks and innuendos.
- To include in a revision the author’s potential conflict of interest as a sufferer of the illness he writes about. See: http://iacfsme.org/PDFS/2016MayNesletter/Attachment-08-Dr-Keith-Geraghty-Doing-CFS-research.aspx
- To enable us then to respond with equal prominence to the remaining criticisms as a whole, in the same online first and print versions so that readers can see both articles side by side and then make up their own minds. At present this is not possible because of the selective, one sided nature of the editorial as it stands.
Yours sincerely,
Professors White, Chalder and Sharpe
Co-principal investigators of the PACE trial
Much more at James'blogpost. Leave comments.
Twitter is fairly active in that regards: