Medicine’s Secret Archives: How Patients are Harmed by the Concealment of Knowledge
Peter Chamberlen was the name of two brothers, who live from about 1540 to1596, who are now famous for inventing the modern use of obstetrical forceps. It remained a family secret for over a century.
No one knows how many mothers’ and babies’ lives have been saved by the obstetrical forceps. This device has been part of the standard equipment of every maternity room for about 250 years. However, a shadow lies over the success story: after the Chamberlen brothers developed the device at the beginning of the 17th century, the brothers and their descendants used it for 3 generations, but kept it a secret from other obstetricians. While thanks to the forceps the Chamberlen family became rich and famous, at the same time women and babies were still dying elsewhere because the device was not available.
The story of the obstetrical forceps is one of the oldest documented examples showing what consequences secrecy in medicine can have. In an article published in the journal Trials, researchers at the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) compiled over 60 examples illustrating how the dissemination of medical knowledge has been impeded. For this purpose, they assessed hundreds of articles from journals and other sources, which covered areas including treatment for psychiatric disorders, pain, heart and circulatory disease, skin disease, cancer, and infectious diseases. A wide range of interventions was affected: from drugs and vaccines to medical devices such as ultrasound or devices for wound care. The collection reads like the script for a crime series. (more…)
Strategies for Dissenting Scientists
By Brian Martin
Dealing with the suppression of scientific investigation.
Brian Martin is Professor of Social Sciences in the School of Social Sciences, Media and Communication at the University of Wollongong.
Abstract : Those who challenge conventional views or vested interests in science are likely to encounter difficulties. A scientific dissenter should first of all realize that science is a system of power as well as knowledge, in which interest groups play a key role and insiders have an extra advantage. Dissenters are likely to be ignored or dismissed. If they gain some recognition or outside support, they may be attacked. In the face of such obstacles, there are several strategies, including mimicking science, aiming at lower status outlets, enlisting patrons, seeking a different audience, exposing suppression of dissent, and building a social movement.
Introduction
Science is normally presented to the public as an enterprise based on skepticism and openness to new ideas, in which evidence and argumentation are examined on their own merits. Trusting newcomers who present views that conflict with standard ideas may thus expect that their work will be given a prompt, fair, and incisive analysis, being accepted if it passes scrutiny and being given detailed reasons if not. When, instead, their work is ignored, ridiculed, or rejected without explanation, they assume that there has been some sort of mistake, and often begin a search to find the “right person” &endash; someone who fits the stereotype of the open-minded scientist. This can be a long search! (more…)
Scientific Suppression: Stamping out dissent
By Brian Martin
Too often, unconventional or unpopular scientific views are simply suppressed.
Brian Martin is Professor of Social Sciences in the School of Social Sciences, Media and Communication at the University of Wollongong.
Textbooks present science as a noble search for truth, in which progress depends on questioning established ideas. But for many scientists, this is a cruel myth. They know from bitter experience that disagreeing with the dominant view is dangerous — especially when that view is backed by powerful interest groups. Call it suppression of intellectual dissent. The usual pattern is that someone does research or speaks out in a way that threatens a powerful interest group, typically a government, industry or professional body. As a result, representatives of that group attack the critic’s ideas or the critic personally–by censoring writing, blocking publications, denying appointments or promotions, withdrawing research grants, taking legal actions, harassing, blacklisting, spreading rumors. (more…)
Is Science in a State of Crisis?
An amazing (and fully operational) science lab from Victorian times, recreated in Glaisdale, North Yorkshire. (Balakov CC A-N-2-G)
by Rochus Boerner
“Textbooks present science as a noble search for truth, in which progress depends on questioning established ideas. But for many scientists, this is a cruel myth. They know from bitter experience that disagreeing with the dominant view is dangerous - especially when that view is backed by powerful interest groups. Call it suppression of intellectual dissent. The usual pattern is that someone does research or speaks out in a way that threatens a powerful interest group, typically a government, industry or professional body. As a result, representatives of that group attack the critic’s ideas or the critic personally-by censoring writing, blocking publications, denying appointments or promotions, withdrawing research grants, taking legal actions, harassing, blacklisting, spreading rumors.” - Martin, Brian. Stamping Out Dissent. (more…)
Academia’s Suppression of Novel Ideas
AGAINST THE TIDE
A Critical Review by Scientists of
How Physics and Astronomy Get Done
Martín López Corredoira &
Carlos Castro Perelman (Eds.)
A book about scientists’ struggle against academia’s suppression of novel ideas:
Nobody should have a monopoly of the truth in this universe. The censorship and suppression of challenging ideas against the tide of mainstream research, the blacklisting of scientists, for instance, is neither the best way to do and filter science, nor to promote progress in the human knowledge. The removal of good and novel ideas from the scientific stage is very detrimental to the pursuit of the truth. There are instances in which a mere unqualified belief can occasionally be converted into a generally accepted scientific theory through the screening action of refereed literature and meetings planned by the scientific organizing committees and through the distribution of funds controlled by “club opinions”. It leads to unitary paradigms and unitary thinking not necessarily associated to the unique truth. This is the topic of this book: to critically analyze the problems of the official (and sometimes illicit) mechanisms under which current science (physics and astronomy in particular) is being administered and filtered today, along with the onerous consequences these mechanisms have on all of us. (more…)
Loading... 
