»critique«

Könnte sowas wie das Motto dieser site geben. Stammt aber vom ubiquitären Ernst Peter Fischer. Der fordert im Deutschlandfunk, dass wir die Forscher und deren Ergebnisse ebenso kritisieren sollten wie das im Literaturbetrieb üblich ist. Hört sich gut an, ist aber auch nicht uneigennützig. Schließlich wollten Fischer und Forscher im Gespräch bleiben.

Sorry, is wohl das erste deutsche Posting auf typolis.

Best of Pogue (I guess, a free registration is required.) David Pogue explains wannabe trolls and pills how to turn to best performance and receive maximum audience. A daily annoyance of critics and columnists like Pogue.

Pogue: "WHEREAS, 95 percent of all the e-mail received by critics and columnists is civil, friendly or respectfully constructive;

"but WHEREAS, this is the Internet age, and we're all anonymous and can avoid making eye contact forever;

"and WHEREAS, there's so much information overload, a little heat and drama on your part may be necessary just to be heard above the din;

"and WHEREAS, many of those who fire off potshots are missing out on some of the best techniques for effective snippiness;

"THEREFORE let us now post the rules for membership in the Pills of the American Internet Neighborhood Society."

In his code of conduct for trolls and pills he gives nine rules.

For the record. Ben Goldacre gives (16.10.2006) some insights into the relation of (science) journalists, scientists, the media and the general public. Some conclusions for journalists and scientists. Ask for:

1. Are the results preliminary?
2. Have they been replicated?
3. Have they been published?
4. Do they differ from previous studies?
5. Can you generalise, say, from your sample population to the general population, or from your animal model to humans?
6. Are there other valid interpretations of your results?
7. Have you been clear on what the data actually show, as opposed to your own speculation and interpretation?

And we stress as ever:
Journals, too, can take a lead, since they often produce the promotional material for research. Risk communication is a key area here, and although it is tempting to present risk increases, and indeed benefits, using the largest single number available (the 'relative risk increase') it is also useful to give the 'natural frequency'. This figure has context built-in and is more intuitively understandable: it is the difference between ibuprofen causing 'a 24 per cent increase in heart attacks' (the relative risk increase) and 'one extra heart attack in every 1,005 people taking it', writes Goldacre.

Ian Sample describes in the Guardian (11.4.2006) how big pharma is aiming at expanding their business by turning -- we exaggerate here -- _any_ condition into a disease that might be cured with an appropriate medication. Check also for a comment of Ben Goldacre in his Bad Science column (15.4.2006).

A furious account on the problems and drawback of the peer-review process in scientific publications is presented by Lawrence Altman in the NY Times (2.5.2006). However, a must-read for anybody scanning the scientific literature. Altman addresses errors and fraud, the insufficient reaction to it by the journals, conflicts of interest of journal editors and reviewers, the rejection of journals for audits to evaluate the process, and last but not least money: "Any influential system that profits from taxpayer-financed research should be held publicly accountable for how the revenues are spent. Journals generally decline to disclose such data," concludes Altman.