Re: Journals use of Wing et al "study" -Reply

[Charles Willis <CAW@nrc.gov>]

Scott,

I believe we all use secondary sources for much of what we write.  The acceptability
of this practice depends upon several factors, such as the objective of  the  work
and the citation made.  BEIR-V, for example, is one of the most cited works in  our
field and very few of  us have had the time and energy to check more than a few of
the original publications.  Your integrity is questionable if you take the information
from the BEIR report and cite the original investigator.  Often it is the consensus
of the Committee that is of interest.  Our CIRRPC subcommittee on the use of
BEIR-V by the Federal Agencies did look deeper and did find flaws (e.g. the risk
estimate for skin) but for most purposes,  citing BEIR-V  is honorable.  Similarly,
we use and cite our textbooks, the handbooks, and the like.  

There is a problem with Ruth Weiner's distrust of  documents other than the
journal articles.  For many studies, the journal publication offers little more than a
summary of the work and an "advertisement" for the more detailed supporting
documents.  I would not feel comfortable using the RERF's publication of their
Report 12 in Radiation Research without a hard look at the detailed data which the
RERF has made available.  

It seems to boil down to a matter of judgement.  One rule to follow is to stick with
the authorities when dealing with matters outside your areas of expertise.

Charlie Willis
caw@nrc.gov