Re: Journals use of Wing et al "study"

[Scott Schwahn <schwahn@jlab.org>]

John Moulder wrote:

> Try that one again.  If a health physicist publishes an article based on
> articles referenced in an NCRP position paper, he/she most certainly is
> expected to have read, reviewed and evaluated those papers.  A reputable
> scientist does not base conclusions on secondary sources...

While I agree with most of what you said, and I am not sure I agree with you here.
How do the rest of you out there think about this?  I usually do not delve into
references unless I need clarification on the issue that I am researching.  And some
references are either no longer easily available, unattainable, etc.  Does that make
me an unreputable scientist?

"Basing conclusions," I think, on secondary references is just fine.  I would,
however, not consider _publishing_ without having investigated as many primary
references as possible.  But I do think we scientists have a responsibility to do
this.  Investigative journalists should not be held to the same standard; scientists
should expect and demand this of their own, but not of the rest of the world.  We
should only hope that the rest of the world would follow the same standard, and
voice our opinion of disapproval when they do not.

Glenn (GACMail98@aol.com), would you please do us the courtesy of telling us your
last name?

--

Scott O. Schwahn, CHP
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
schwahn@jlab.org