Norway and prof. Gundersen: PACE-debate in newspaper Morgenbladet

The Norwegian biology professor Kristian Gundersen has several times criticised ME-patients for criticising research.

First time was last year where he defended PACE against its criticism and warned against ME-patients being listened to. @Jonathan Edwards wrote a response.

Last week he defended a study on homosexuality and a theory from Stanford researchers on whether an algorithm can identify sexual orientation from pictures, a study which has been strongly criticised.
Prof. Gundersen drew a parallell in the same text to ME-patients' attack on "the biggest study within the field (meaning PACE), because it implies the condition could be psychological". This was written as a debate article in the newspaper Morgenbladet - a wonderful newspaper with great feature articles on research. I hope some journalists there are starting to get curious.

He got two replies regarding this:
Synsing om syke
google translate: strong opinions and little knowledge about patients

All forskning er ikke like god
google translate: All research is not equally good

Today prof. Gundersen came with a reply himself:
ME-miljøene er et skrekkens eksempel over hele verden
googel translation: The ME environments are a world wide horror example

He continues to defend PACE, defends Ketil Brurberg from the Cochrane review group, attacks prof. Coyne and the Journal of Health Psychology, claims that ME-patients are torpedoing projects which could confirm PACE and that they are bullying researchers out of the field.

- In the long run, the ME/CFS activists make the patients a disservice. In order to proceed with research on ME/CFS, we must use the science toolbox. You can't reach true knowledge on activism.

 

Well here's the problem

 

It seems that Dr Gundersen is himself very keen on activism:

Wikipedia: Gundersen is an active communicator of science, and participates in public debate on university policy issues and as critic of alternative treatment and superstition.

As for using the toolbox of science, yes Dr Gundersen, that would help. What makes you think PACE does that? It is about the worst trial in history, even colleagues at QMUL are deeply embarrassed by it.

 

Awww... Gunderson's blundering always makes me ache with frustration. It's amazing he keeps wanting to put forth his opinions on the scandal around PACE, despite not wanting to take the time to look at the details of the problems with PACE. It's such a weird position to want to hold, particularly as it has now been such a sustained period of time.

 

Reading and thinking is hard work! Spouting opinions is so easy that any idiot can do it, as Gunderson is thoughtfully demonstrating

 

I think it's time to coin the term alternative science. PACE is alternative science. A mess of self-confirmatory nonsense, done by people that don't know enough about real science to recognize their own incompetence.

 

Or fake science

 

I don't think he's even bothered to look deeper into the details on PACE. If I remember correctly, he studied in England. His trust in British institutions as the Lancet is rock solid. I don't think it has occurred to him that it is even possible that the system in which he relies on can produce serious mistakes. Also, I get a paternalistic vibe of a scholar who doesn't want patients messing with pure research with their opinions and experiences. That patients can have a say in distribution of research funds, or by collecting money themselves for the research they want to see done, must sound like a nightmare to him. I think that might be the core here.

 

I'm just here to lower the tone and to say that a lot of people who enjoy a good rummage around in toolboxes seem to have an unfortunate habit of baring their arses.

 

I might steal that if that's ok?

 

@Jonathan Edwards ' comment was shared on twitter, and got a reply.

 

Fighting talk.

 

So he's fine with attacking patients and dismissing their concerns but his feelings are hurt when one of his peers does the same to him....

 

Oh boy that should be a fun debate, pity it will never happen but if Gundersen wants to come to London around IinME conference time to do it ill gladly put up 50 quid towards expenses.

 

Is it right to say Gundersen is being polemic?
I kind of think so.

 

sharp(e) practice

sharp practice
noun
noun: sharp practice
dishonest or barely honest dealings.
"any kind of sharp practice will ruin a barrister's career"
synonyms: trickery, chicanery, deception, deceit, deceitfulness, duplicity, dishonesty, unscrupulousness, underhandedness, subterfuge, fraud, fraudulence, legerdemain, sophistry, skulduggery, swindling, cheating, duping, hoodwinking

 

False-beliefs science.