- 26 Jan 2018 01:22
#14882805
Reproducibility means a lot. It's one of the cornerstones of the scientific method. If someone's claims in the field of medicine cannot be reproduced, or a range of fellow scientists find vastly different results, it can lead to reexamination of the claims, a full retraction, or possibly even worse.
Using children without consent of the parents/their consent (depends on age) is literally the definition of unethical and grounds for disciplinary (and/or legal) action. It's not the norm among doctors. There is no doctor, or any qualified scientist on Earth, who would possibly be confused on that point.
ness31 wrote:The fact that others couldn’t reproduce his results doesn’t mean much tbh.
Reproducibility means a lot. It's one of the cornerstones of the scientific method. If someone's claims in the field of medicine cannot be reproduced, or a range of fellow scientists find vastly different results, it can lead to reexamination of the claims, a full retraction, or possibly even worse.
Did Wakefield count on all those other other issues of misconduct to destroy him? Probably not. Why he felt comfortable using kids as lab rats and not disclosing financial conflicts of interest is anyone’s guess, but maybe he felt it was the norm.
Using children without consent of the parents/their consent (depends on age) is literally the definition of unethical and grounds for disciplinary (and/or legal) action. It's not the norm among doctors. There is no doctor, or any qualified scientist on Earth, who would possibly be confused on that point.
"I don't know if you're a detective or a pervert."
"Well, that's for me to know and you to find out."
[ Forum Rules ][ Newbie Guide ][ Mission Statement ][ FAQ ]
"Well, that's for me to know and you to find out."
[ Forum Rules ][ Newbie Guide ][ Mission Statement ][ FAQ ]