Re[2]: Hopkins Thesis Availability/Coverup Thread- Response

[col_eric_daxon@medcom2.smtplink.amedd.army.mil]

     I have been following this thread because it illustrates how the 
     normal, time-proven, process of releasing research results can be 
     misunderstood and how the choice of words can be used to convey 
     sinister intent when perhaps none were present.
     
     In a 2/4/99 8:19AM Post Mr. Farber wrote:
     
     "I try never to make unsupported claims about important issues.  
     Accordingly, my posts supplied detailed information about Johns 
     Hopkins issuing official statements denying that research had been 
     completed on the health effects of Nasal Radium Irradiation. I also 
     supplied the time line in my posts on the subjects sufficient to 
     support the point being made."
     
     The first point, the correct avenue for the release of research 
     results is in the peer reviewed literature.  It is not uncommon for 
     this process to uncover errors or additional work that needs to be 
     done.  Once completed, the peer review process helps to guarantee the 
     validity of the work and substantially reduces the potential 
     publishing incorrect data.  This is especially critical for health 
     effects data.  It is very important that the data and conclusions 
     drawn be right.
     
     A good, well publicized example of how damaging going to the press 
     prior to peer review is "Cold Fusion."
     
     From my read of what has occurred, Johns Hopkins is following the 
     correct path.  The research really is not done until the peer review 
     is complete.
     
     Standard disclaimers.
     
     
     Eric G. Daxon, egdaxon@juno.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________


************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html