I found this video while pootling about on the interweb -
While it is a mash up and not a true representation of overall presentations involved in the video, there is a clear section where Esther Crawley is presenting to the MRC (in 2010) about her trial.
There are lots of things to comment on in the clips included in this video but for this topic I was interested in her inclusion of other science papers in this area and her critique of them - bearing in mind her comments and opinions on vexatious and harassing behaviour when it comes to scientific studies. Some notable things pop out:
During this presentation she "scientifically" explores the XMRV research. She criticises the reported numbers (hmm sounds similar to other papers but it is her doing the criticising). She also shows a knowledge of blinded studies and says that it is unclear from the paper whether it was blinded or not.
My thoughts on this are that her behaviour as a scientific professional is worse than Dr Tuller's (who has not behaved badly at all by the way). She criticises other research in front of her peers and at various events. She doesn't at any stage say that she has contacted them to ask about any of the issues she has picked up on. Dr Tuller however is highly professional in his approach and has always had the courtesy to try and find the answers from the source before reporting issues for discussion.
To me it seems that pot and kettle spring to mind and it's ok to behave one way but when questions start being asked of your own research the gates go up and it's ok to throw accusations of harassment around. I thought it was an interesting comparison so thought I would share ...
While it is a mash up and not a true representation of overall presentations involved in the video, there is a clear section where Esther Crawley is presenting to the MRC (in 2010) about her trial.
There are lots of things to comment on in the clips included in this video but for this topic I was interested in her inclusion of other science papers in this area and her critique of them - bearing in mind her comments and opinions on vexatious and harassing behaviour when it comes to scientific studies. Some notable things pop out:
- Shows early indications of simpering in presentations - "ooh I wonder how they get those colours on them, they are beautiful"
- Inaccurate statements? - the video layover indicates this but I have not validated these
- Criticises a test that costs $650 - sounds similar to the treatment that is £600/700 - says people can make up their mind about whether it is a conflict of interest, but when there is discussion or questions to her about it she claims she is being harassed
During this presentation she "scientifically" explores the XMRV research. She criticises the reported numbers (hmm sounds similar to other papers but it is her doing the criticising). She also shows a knowledge of blinded studies and says that it is unclear from the paper whether it was blinded or not.
My thoughts on this are that her behaviour as a scientific professional is worse than Dr Tuller's (who has not behaved badly at all by the way). She criticises other research in front of her peers and at various events. She doesn't at any stage say that she has contacted them to ask about any of the issues she has picked up on. Dr Tuller however is highly professional in his approach and has always had the courtesy to try and find the answers from the source before reporting issues for discussion.
To me it seems that pot and kettle spring to mind and it's ok to behave one way but when questions start being asked of your own research the gates go up and it's ok to throw accusations of harassment around. I thought it was an interesting comparison so thought I would share ...
