Blog: Hilda Bastian, "A Cartoon Guide to Criticism: Scientist Edition"

"Science is a profession where critique is integral to the work itself. So you might think we’d all have both criticizing, and handling being on the receiving end of it, down to a fine art. But you’d be wrong – as a rather spectacular recent blowout of norms by a prominent scientist reminded us. Sociologist Robert Merton pointed out in the 1960s that scientists also rely on the acceptance and recognition of their peers, so it’s no wonder things get heated.

I spent several years moderating a high-profile forum for scientific criticism, and my position about this is still broadly similar to the one I described in PLOS Medicine in 2014: I think we need a much stronger post-publication culture in science. I’ve got some notes about that and my position in relation to this recent episode in the disclosures below this post.

Let’s get straight to my (rather wordy) cartoon guide to science criticism – and you can always just skip through the headings and cartoons."

https://absolutelymaybe.plos.org/2021/04/04/a-cartoon-guide-to-criticism-scientist-edition/

[This blog touches on what is discussed here, Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of COVID‐19: an overview of systematic evaluations, 2021, Ioannidis, but as it also covers wider issues, I've posted it as a standalone thread.]

 

I like the cameo of Michael Sharpe.

But is there much point in giving advice on how to behave nicely and rationally when the nice rational people always did and the problem is those who have no interest in that, and precious few who give such advice seem to practice what they preach.

Why is it, I ask, that her supervisor, Paul Glasziou, is happy to trot out similar advice on being critical in science while at the same time co-authoring a Cochrane review that commits every crime in his book?

Maybe there ought to be another cartoon of someone from a certain organisation saying 'we can tell you how to do everything properly, with reliable and trusted evidence every time'.

 

Nope, not excessively grumpy. Valid.

Demonstrates the priorities better than we ever could.

 

Was thinking this myself. Cartoons over people’s health, hmmm, it’s a tricky one to prioritise....

 

I agree that it would have been far better to report on reasons for the delay sooner - but those reports, including explanations of that, are in process. No, there is no connection with the NICE guidelines process, and neither external pressure nor internal political pressure is holding up the Cochrane review process. (On the subject of my working on other things: the Cochrane ME/CFS review was never going to be a full-time job for me.)