Editorâs note: This post responds to a Feb. 13 article in The Atlantic, âThe Scientific Literature Canât Save Us Now,â written by Retraction Watch cofounders Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky.
The contentious issue of what â and more importantly who â to believe, when it comes to medical science, is at a critical moment. Watchdog organizations such as Retraction Watch provide a great service to science and the public, by exposing junk scientists and their products, helping to disinfect the field with their sunlight. I commend Mr. Marcus and Dr. Oransky for their sustained efforts in this meta-discipline.
However, policing the scientific literature is a tricky business. In particular, one must be careful to apply the same standards one demands of others to oneâs own work. Agreeable as many of their points are, Marcus and Oranskyâs article discrediting Mawson and Jacobâs study (which Robert F. Kennedy Jr. cited during his confirmation hearings) falls woefully short of meeting even basic scientific editorial standards. This failure imbues their article with the same yellow hue that they decry in othersâ journalism.
Continue reading Guest post: If youâre going to critique science, be scientific about it







