Medical journals such as JAMA and NEJM often publish editorials
accompanying articles that they feel require such commentary.
I was not aware that the AMA (apart from its journals) took the sort of
action that is described below.
At 10:28 AM -0700 6/11/99, Jeffrey Nagelbush wrote:
>Jim Clark responded to the letter below:
>>
>>
>>
>> > We will seek independent expert evaluation of the scientific
>> > quality of the article and will make those results known. This
>> > is unprecedented in the Associationís history of scholarly
>> > publishing, but, in view of the criticism of this study by
>> > various groups and individuals, we believe that such a review
>> > is appropriate.
>
>with the following:
>
>>It is unprecedented for a reason. Such actions are antithetical
>>to the purpose and functioning of a scientific organization.
>>What sane researcher will choose to study and publish
>>controversial results when they will be subjected to such witch
>>hunts? Although we all as individuals look extra closely for
>>flaws in articles that propose conclusions with which we
>>disagree, it is inappropriate and damaging to science for a
>>scientific organization to pick out articles for extra-special
>>scrutiny.
>
>It is unprecedented for APA but not for AMA. They do it quite regularly
>and, at least in principle, I do not object. I do believe we are, at least
>in part, responsible for the social implications of what we do. Articles
>should not be rejected based on their social implications, but articles that
>have controversial social implications should be examined carefully. We
>have no trouble with the proposition that extraordinary claims (e.g., for
>ESP) require extraordinary evidence. Perhaps we should consider that
>possibilty that extraordinary social implications might also need
>extraordinary evidence. We do have to realize we do not live in a vacuum.
>If society does not like what we do, it may well stop supporting us. We
>must be particularly sure that the controversial claims we make are clearly
>justifiable from what we currently know.
>
>I also think that commentary on (controversial) articles is a good thing.
>It happens regularly in some places (e.g., SRCD Monographs)and would be
>useful, I think, in other places as well. I am opposed to censoring
>articles due to their controversial nature, but I do not think we should
>ignore the controversies either.
>
>Jeff Nagelbush
>Ferris State University
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________________________
>Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Department 507-389-6217 *
* "The University formerly known as Mankato State" *
* http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
