By Ella Peregrine in NICE Guidelines Blogspot.
Recently, David Tuller, James Coyne, Vincent Racaniello, and some other non-invested scientists and writers have been looking more carefully into the claims and relative lack of transparency of the UK’s expensive and influential PACE trial. Those interested in the question of data sharing in research have been drawn in, because of the ongoing refusals by PACE researchers of requests for de-identified data to analyze.
Last week quite a stir was raised when Nature published an argument for avoiding data sharing in which patients and scientists questioning the claims made by PACE authors were equated with tobacco industry supporters and climate change deniers. Although the editorial was not written by a member of the research group responsible for PACE, there are traceable connections between the authors. Following their ongoing (and previously very effective) narrative of victimization and infallibility, the PACE defenders have made a quantum leap in their willingness to twist reality to serve their purposes.
Climate change deniers and tobacco control opposition are funded by the deep pockets of industries under threat from emerging science, and represent the status quo of money and power in their respective fields. White, Chalder, Wessley and company have much more in common with climate change deniers (aka the fossil fuel industry) financially, culturally, and politically, than with the scientists desperately trying to illuminate an emergent and critical threat to life and health.
To read the rest of this story, click on the link below: