Lancet editor-in-chief calls for ‘activist’ journals

But I thought activism was bad???

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/lancet-editor-chief-calls-activist-journals

 

It's probably only a club for the "good" activists. The ones that don't make anyone important look bad and don't threaten commercial interests.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UL9tuU1k8y4

 

Sorry mate but we don't actually need you to survive.
If you want to do PR work the first thing to learn is not to let on right at the beginning Dr Horton.

 

What I think we need is activist Andean geese. They have been discriminated against for too long now.

 

Fear is a great motivator for pretending to change.

 

Isn't the ress supposed to report the 'news', in that they are not supposed to set out to make it?

When the tabloids have been caught doing that people have generally not been amused.

...and I thought that there was a word for news outlets that reported in such a fashion as to try and steer society in the direction they want - propaganda.

 

Activism is good

The Lancet is good

Psychiatrists are good



GET is good

CBT is good

CFS doctors bad



ME is CFS

ME/CFS Activism is bad

 

Horton reinvents the society review journal.

 

I agree. Sounds like a think-tank with a magazine. He can be my guest if it means a shift to a more sensible overall scientific vetting/publishing paradigm.

 

I think it would be a big mistake to politicise scientific journals. Scientists will bend their results to fit the political agenda they are pursuing. There will be no checkpoints to scrutinise the political goals or to evaluate the outcome of political programs. I think it is important to separate institutions. Political leaders and policy makers should have to justify and defend their policies in the light of independent scientific research, not shape the research to justify their political goals.