Week15Logos(2)LectureNotes[2]

Week15Logos(2)LectureNotes[2] - Week 15 Logos (2: Social...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Week 15 Logos (2: Social Level) Overview I. "Pseudo-Results": Research results can be falsified or invented. A. Research Fraud 1. Publishing made-up or manipulated data 2. Not publishing known adverse effects B. Slanting the available data 1. Hiring "ghost writers" 2. Hiring "scientists" to manipulate research Manipulating: a) the hypothesis b) the interpretation of the data II. Sound Research results can be denied/challenged for economic or other gain. Repeated pattern of DENIAL of effects by industry Scientific evidence of harmful effects Attacks on science by industry Production of their own studies Attacks on opponents' studies methodology Alternate causes Dramatic demonstrations of personal use Attacks on scientists/other groups (legal and PR) Testimony before congress/other agencies Counter-interests groups gather Legislation/regulatory action Example: Tobacco Smoke and Health III. Multiple Examples Establish the Repeated Social Pattern. ... DDT Chloro-fluorocarbons Lead Acid Rain. ... Others???? IV: What Rhetorical Factors Contribute to These Tendencies? V. How Should Society Deal With These Tendencies?
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Lecture Starts HERE: There are two systematic social-level biases involved in skewing the directions in which these pseudo results are produced. I. "Pseudo-Results": Research results can be falsified or invented. Individual researchers, surgical organizations, and pharmaceutical (or other) companies have an incentive to find "positive" results and to deny negative effects of drugs or other commodities. For individual scientists, careers require producing positive results. For companies, results on drugs or other commodities must show both positive benefits and negligible adverse effects. This results in A. Research Fraud 1. Publishing made-up or manipulated data a. Research Fraud Exists, and Sometimes Relates to Important Cases Jon Sudbo, a researcher at Norway's Comprehensive Cancer Center, published articles in the Lancet (one of the two most prestigious British medical journals) and the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of Clinical Oncology , showing that ibuprofen lowered the risk of oral cancer but raised the risk of dying from heart disease. He has been found to have fabricated the studies completely, making up the research participants. As the editor of the Lanc et said, he was a "very clever fabricator," saying he "fooled his colleagues, he fooled his hospital , he fooled his funding agency, he fooled the journal." "In a survey published by the journal Nature , about 1.5 percent of 3,247 researchers who responded admitted to falsification or plagiarism." Alexis Black, "Fraud in medical research: A frightening, all-too-common trend on the rise," Tuesday, April 18, 2006 by: Alexis Black, http://www.naturalnews.com/019353.html b. Research Fraud is Difficult to Find and Prosecute Black notes that "allegations of misconduct by researchers in the United States reached record highs in 2004, with the department of Health and Human Services receiving 274
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 09/05/2011 for the course SPEECH 3300 taught by Professor Winderman during the Spring '11 term at University of Georgia Athens.

Page1 / 14

Week15Logos(2)LectureNotes[2] - Week 15 Logos (2: Social...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online