#discredit — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #discredit, aggregated by home.social.
-
A word of caution on my end. It relates to something I touch upon that in a recent #preprint on open data: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hk786_v1
There is a striking resemble to things recommended and backed by Big #Tabacco vs #Science some decades ago.
Ironically, they demanded what we in #OpenScience demand nowadays, but with a very different aim... :(Here a quick summary:
"Long before today’s #Open #Science movements, the Executive Committee of the Sound Science Coalition (1994; cited in Ong & Glantz, 2001) published guidelines that align with what Open Science practices advocate today. For example:
(1) The study design should inform about all hypotheses,
(2) after the study was conducted, the data should be analyzed as described in the study design, and
(3) if the data does not support the hypotheses, no further analyses are necessary.
Shockingly, in 1994 these recommendations were motivated by the fact that parts of the #tobacco industry aimed to #discredit research and researchers on a large scale, with the goal that it could not be legally established that smoking increases the risk of lung #cancer (Drope, 2001; Muggli et al., 2001; Ong & Glantz, 2001). Along this line, one may accuse researchers as having been naive to the vested interests aligning with scientific rigour by non-researchers." -
A word of caution on my end. It relates to something I touch upon that in a recent #preprint on open data: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hk786_v1
There is a striking resemble to things recommended and backed by Big #Tabacco vs #Science some decades ago.
Ironically, they demanded what we in #OpenScience demand nowadays, but with a very different aim... :(Here a quick summary:
"Long before today’s #Open #Science movements, the Executive Committee of the Sound Science Coalition (1994; cited in Ong & Glantz, 2001) published guidelines that align with what Open Science practices advocate today. For example:
(1) The study design should inform about all hypotheses,
(2) after the study was conducted, the data should be analyzed as described in the study design, and
(3) if the data does not support the hypotheses, no further analyses are necessary.
Shockingly, in 1994 these recommendations were motivated by the fact that parts of the #tobacco industry aimed to #discredit research and researchers on a large scale, with the goal that it could not be legally established that smoking increases the risk of lung #cancer (Drope, 2001; Muggli et al., 2001; Ong & Glantz, 2001). Along this line, one may accuse researchers as having been naive to the vested interests aligning with scientific rigour by non-researchers." -
A word of caution on my end. It relates to something I touch upon that in a recent #preprint on open data: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hk786_v1
There is a striking resemble to things recommended and backed by Big #Tabacco vs #Science some decades ago.
Ironically, they demanded what we in #OpenScience demand nowadays, but with a very different aim... :(Here a quick summary:
"Long before today’s #Open #Science movements, the Executive Committee of the Sound Science Coalition (1994; cited in Ong & Glantz, 2001) published guidelines that align with what Open Science practices advocate today. For example:
(1) The study design should inform about all hypotheses,
(2) after the study was conducted, the data should be analyzed as described in the study design, and
(3) if the data does not support the hypotheses, no further analyses are necessary.
Shockingly, in 1994 these recommendations were motivated by the fact that parts of the #tobacco industry aimed to #discredit research and researchers on a large scale, with the goal that it could not be legally established that smoking increases the risk of lung #cancer (Drope, 2001; Muggli et al., 2001; Ong & Glantz, 2001). Along this line, one may accuse researchers as having been naive to the vested interests aligning with scientific rigour by non-researchers." -
A word of caution on my end. It relates to something I touch upon that in a recent #preprint on open data: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hk786_v1
There is a striking resemble to things recommended and backed by Big #Tabacco vs #Science some decades ago.
Ironically, they demanded what we in #OpenScience demand nowadays, but with a very different aim... :(Here a quick summary:
"Long before today’s #Open #Science movements, the Executive Committee of the Sound Science Coalition (1994; cited in Ong & Glantz, 2001) published guidelines that align with what Open Science practices advocate today. For example:
(1) The study design should inform about all hypotheses,
(2) after the study was conducted, the data should be analyzed as described in the study design, and
(3) if the data does not support the hypotheses, no further analyses are necessary.
Shockingly, in 1994 these recommendations were motivated by the fact that parts of the #tobacco industry aimed to #discredit research and researchers on a large scale, with the goal that it could not be legally established that smoking increases the risk of lung #cancer (Drope, 2001; Muggli et al., 2001; Ong & Glantz, 2001). Along this line, one may accuse researchers as having been naive to the vested interests aligning with scientific rigour by non-researchers." -
@UlrikeHahn
We as researchers are just super naive. If you ask me, those things go back to Big #Tabacco vs #Science
Ironically, they demanded what we in #OpenScience demand nowadays, but with a very different aim... :(I touch upon that in a recent #preprint on open data: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hk786_v1
"Long before today’s #Open #Science movements, the Executive Committee of the Sound Science Coalition (1994; cited in Ong & Glantz, 2001) published guidelines that align with what Open Science practices advocate today. For example:
(1) The study design should inform about all hypotheses,
(2) after the study was conducted, the data should be analyzed as described in the study design, and
(3) if the data does not support the hypotheses, no further analyses are necessary.
Shockingly, in #1994 these recommendations were motivated by the fact that parts of the #tobacco industry aimed to #discredit research and researchers on a large scale, with the goal that it could not be legally established that smoking increases the risk of lung #cancer (Drope, 2001; Muggli et al., 2001; Ong & Glantz, 2001). Along this line, one may accuse researchers as having been naive to the vested interests aligning with scientific rigour by non-researchers." -
@UlrikeHahn
We as researchers are just super naive. If you ask me, those things go back to Big #Tabacco vs #Science
Ironically, they demanded what we in #OpenScience demand nowadays, but with a very different aim... :(I touch upon that in a recent #preprint on open data: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hk786_v1
"Long before today’s #Open #Science movements, the Executive Committee of the Sound Science Coalition (1994; cited in Ong & Glantz, 2001) published guidelines that align with what Open Science practices advocate today. For example:
(1) The study design should inform about all hypotheses,
(2) after the study was conducted, the data should be analyzed as described in the study design, and
(3) if the data does not support the hypotheses, no further analyses are necessary.
Shockingly, in #1994 these recommendations were motivated by the fact that parts of the #tobacco industry aimed to #discredit research and researchers on a large scale, with the goal that it could not be legally established that smoking increases the risk of lung #cancer (Drope, 2001; Muggli et al., 2001; Ong & Glantz, 2001). Along this line, one may accuse researchers as having been naive to the vested interests aligning with scientific rigour by non-researchers." -
@UlrikeHahn
We as researchers are just super naive. If you ask me, those things go back to Big #Tabacco vs #Science
Ironically, they demanded what we in #OpenScience demand nowadays, but with a very different aim... :(I touch upon that in a recent #preprint on open data: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hk786_v1
"Long before today’s #Open #Science movements, the Executive Committee of the Sound Science Coalition (1994; cited in Ong & Glantz, 2001) published guidelines that align with what Open Science practices advocate today. For example:
(1) The study design should inform about all hypotheses,
(2) after the study was conducted, the data should be analyzed as described in the study design, and
(3) if the data does not support the hypotheses, no further analyses are necessary.
Shockingly, in #1994 these recommendations were motivated by the fact that parts of the #tobacco industry aimed to #discredit research and researchers on a large scale, with the goal that it could not be legally established that smoking increases the risk of lung #cancer (Drope, 2001; Muggli et al., 2001; Ong & Glantz, 2001). Along this line, one may accuse researchers as having been naive to the vested interests aligning with scientific rigour by non-researchers." -
@UlrikeHahn
We as researchers are just super naive. If you ask me, those things go back to Big #Tabacco vs #Science
Ironically, they demanded what we in #OpenScience demand nowadays, but with a very different aim... :(I touch upon that in a recent #preprint on open data: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hk786_v1
"Long before today’s #Open #Science movements, the Executive Committee of the Sound Science Coalition (1994; cited in Ong & Glantz, 2001) published guidelines that align with what Open Science practices advocate today. For example:
(1) The study design should inform about all hypotheses,
(2) after the study was conducted, the data should be analyzed as described in the study design, and
(3) if the data does not support the hypotheses, no further analyses are necessary.
Shockingly, in #1994 these recommendations were motivated by the fact that parts of the #tobacco industry aimed to #discredit research and researchers on a large scale, with the goal that it could not be legally established that smoking increases the risk of lung #cancer (Drope, 2001; Muggli et al., 2001; Ong & Glantz, 2001). Along this line, one may accuse researchers as having been naive to the vested interests aligning with scientific rigour by non-researchers."