Peter Pitts
What ever happened to dialogue and ... ethics?
In it's reporting/editorializing on the recent "what-did-Merck-know-and-when-did-it-know-it" saga, JAMA accuses some pretty high-powered healthcare professionals of shilling for shillings.
Now it comes to light that the folks JAMA denounced weren't even given the chance by the Sultans of Science to defend themselves.
Here's what the Washington Post says,
"Although the two studies question the integrity of dozens of physicians and scientists, the JAMA authors did not seek responses from them. Several of those people yesterday called the conclusions incorrect, incomplete or unfair."
Don't "real" journalists" seek out both sides of the story? Don't real scientists?
Posted by Peter Pitts on April 17, 2008 7:15 AM
What ever happened to dialogue and ... ethics?
In it's reporting/editorializing on the recent "what-did-Merck-know-and-when-did-it-know-it" saga, JAMA accuses some pretty high-powered healthcare professionals of shilling for shillings.
Now it comes to light that the folks JAMA denounced weren't even given the chance by the Sultans of Science to defend themselves.
Here's what the Washington Post says,
"Although the two studies question the integrity of dozens of physicians and scientists, the JAMA authors did not seek responses from them. Several of those people yesterday called the conclusions incorrect, incomplete or unfair."
Don't "real" journalists" seek out both sides of the story? Don't real scientists?
Posted by Peter Pitts on April 17, 2008 7:15 AM
