(And in the evening too). Alerted by an astute and watchful colleague, I bring to your attention recent essays on the disturbing implications of the infamous "prayer improves in vitro fertilization rate" study published in the _Journal of Reproductive Medicine_ in 2001, which we've discussed here from time to time.
The first item is Daniel Engber's "Quality control: the case against peer review" (yesterday, April 5th in _Slate_) at http://slate.msn.com/id/2116244/ The second and third are two important comments on the research (no, sorry, make that "research") at: http://tinyurl.com/4kmbm (http://www.improvingmedicalstatistics.com/Columbia%20Miracle%20Study. htm) But I still wonder about the one published in the British Medical Journal (Leibovici, L. (2001). Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2001: 145-145) (abstract at http://tinyurl.com/4qjuw ). This one appears never to have been discredited. Given some hints in Leibovici's background, my guess is that this is a deliberate hoax (note its presence in the special Christmas issue of BMJ) intended to provoke discussion. Yet I don't think he falsified data. So how he did he do it? Stephen ___________________________________________________ Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470 Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661 Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lennoxville, QC J1M 1Z7 Canada Dept web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy TIPS discussion list for psychology teachers at http://faculty.frostburg.edu/psyc/southerly/tips/index.htm _______________________________________________ --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
