Don Roberto
2016-07-20 08:40:19 UTC
The president is not a scientist
BY ALEX BEREZOW AND TOM HARTSFIELD
Los Angeles Times
7/18/2016
THE JOURNAL of the American Medical Assn. (JAMA) recently published a
very unusual article: a scientific study authored by a sitting president
of the United States. That’s never happened before.
In a sense, it’s cool that President Obama cares enough about science to
want to publish a paper in one of the world’s leading medical journals.
But JAMA has set a bad precedent. The article, on healthcare reform in
the United States, is problematic not only in its content but in the
threat it poses to the integrity of scientific publishing.
Let’s set aside the debate on whether the specific numbers in the
article are factual. (Of course, there is certainly room to question
Obama’s data. The president writes that “[t]rends in healthcare costs …
have been promising,” even though healthcare spending per capita
continues to increase.)
Far more troubling is the president’s tone, which is often
self-congratulatory. “I am proud of the policy changes in the
[Affordable Care Act],” he writes, “and the progress that has been made
toward a more affordable, high-quality, and accessible healthcare system.”
It would be difficult, if not impossible, to find another paper in any
scientific journal in which a politician was allowed to subjectively
analyze his own policy and declare it a success. This is a textbook
definition of conflict of interest.
Moreover, despite the scholarly nature of this academic journal, the
president seems incapable of resisting political rhetoric. He glazes
over contentious details of the ACA with poorly substantiated claims.
For instance, he writes, “For most Americans … Marketplaces are
working.” Are they? A majority of Americans want ACA repealed, while
others would prefer a universal healthcare system.
Worse, when it comes to those who disagree with his ideas, Obama
responds with petty jabs. After denouncing “hyper-partisanship,” he then
goes on to criticize Republicans for “excessive oversight” and
“relentless litigation” that “undermined ACA implementation efforts.”
One-sided commentary is perfectly fine for the campaign trail, but it
has no place in a scientific journal, or in the scientific record
alongside the discoveries of DNA and black holes. On the contrary, a
good scientific paper devotes space to seriously considering the
objections of other scientists. Failure to do so would often be grounds
for rejection. Rather than ignoring or belittling opposing ideas, it is
the author’s job to convince his readers that his data and ideas are
superior.
Obviously, JAMA held the president to a different, lower standard than
it would an academic scientist. In fact, JAMA editor in chief Howard
Bauchner admitted as much. In an interview with the Chronicle of Higher
Education, he said that Obama’s article was peer reviewed, but that he
was allowed “a bit more flexibility because of who he is.” He also
acknowledged that “we don’t fact-check every fact.”
That’s outrageous. Fact-checking is integral to peer review. Scientific
publications earn their reputations by publishing only studies that hold
up under intense logical and empirical scrutiny. The referees who
administer this process will often reject an article outright or ask for
months of painstaking corrections if they find even a small error.
It is neither ethical nor scientifically rigorous to bend the rules
based on the identity of the author. Facts, not famous bylines,
determine the quality and significance of a scientific study.
The bottom line is that the president of the United States patted
himself on the back and mocked his political opponents in a highly
prestigious scientific journal. No scientist or doctor would have been
allowed to publish what he published. It is difficult to fathom what
JAMA was thinking.
As a major voice in the medical community, it is within JAMA’s best
interest to stay out of politics. Otherwise, people, including doctors
and scientists, may begin to tune out.
--------------------------------------
ALEX BEREZOW is senior fellow of biomedical science at the
American Council on Science and Health.
Hartsfield is a nuclear physicist living in Los Alamos, N.M., and a
writer for RealClearScience.
BY ALEX BEREZOW AND TOM HARTSFIELD
Los Angeles Times
7/18/2016
THE JOURNAL of the American Medical Assn. (JAMA) recently published a
very unusual article: a scientific study authored by a sitting president
of the United States. That’s never happened before.
In a sense, it’s cool that President Obama cares enough about science to
want to publish a paper in one of the world’s leading medical journals.
But JAMA has set a bad precedent. The article, on healthcare reform in
the United States, is problematic not only in its content but in the
threat it poses to the integrity of scientific publishing.
Let’s set aside the debate on whether the specific numbers in the
article are factual. (Of course, there is certainly room to question
Obama’s data. The president writes that “[t]rends in healthcare costs …
have been promising,” even though healthcare spending per capita
continues to increase.)
Far more troubling is the president’s tone, which is often
self-congratulatory. “I am proud of the policy changes in the
[Affordable Care Act],” he writes, “and the progress that has been made
toward a more affordable, high-quality, and accessible healthcare system.”
It would be difficult, if not impossible, to find another paper in any
scientific journal in which a politician was allowed to subjectively
analyze his own policy and declare it a success. This is a textbook
definition of conflict of interest.
Moreover, despite the scholarly nature of this academic journal, the
president seems incapable of resisting political rhetoric. He glazes
over contentious details of the ACA with poorly substantiated claims.
For instance, he writes, “For most Americans … Marketplaces are
working.” Are they? A majority of Americans want ACA repealed, while
others would prefer a universal healthcare system.
Worse, when it comes to those who disagree with his ideas, Obama
responds with petty jabs. After denouncing “hyper-partisanship,” he then
goes on to criticize Republicans for “excessive oversight” and
“relentless litigation” that “undermined ACA implementation efforts.”
One-sided commentary is perfectly fine for the campaign trail, but it
has no place in a scientific journal, or in the scientific record
alongside the discoveries of DNA and black holes. On the contrary, a
good scientific paper devotes space to seriously considering the
objections of other scientists. Failure to do so would often be grounds
for rejection. Rather than ignoring or belittling opposing ideas, it is
the author’s job to convince his readers that his data and ideas are
superior.
Obviously, JAMA held the president to a different, lower standard than
it would an academic scientist. In fact, JAMA editor in chief Howard
Bauchner admitted as much. In an interview with the Chronicle of Higher
Education, he said that Obama’s article was peer reviewed, but that he
was allowed “a bit more flexibility because of who he is.” He also
acknowledged that “we don’t fact-check every fact.”
That’s outrageous. Fact-checking is integral to peer review. Scientific
publications earn their reputations by publishing only studies that hold
up under intense logical and empirical scrutiny. The referees who
administer this process will often reject an article outright or ask for
months of painstaking corrections if they find even a small error.
It is neither ethical nor scientifically rigorous to bend the rules
based on the identity of the author. Facts, not famous bylines,
determine the quality and significance of a scientific study.
The bottom line is that the president of the United States patted
himself on the back and mocked his political opponents in a highly
prestigious scientific journal. No scientist or doctor would have been
allowed to publish what he published. It is difficult to fathom what
JAMA was thinking.
As a major voice in the medical community, it is within JAMA’s best
interest to stay out of politics. Otherwise, people, including doctors
and scientists, may begin to tune out.
--------------------------------------
ALEX BEREZOW is senior fellow of biomedical science at the
American Council on Science and Health.
Hartsfield is a nuclear physicist living in Los Alamos, N.M., and a
writer for RealClearScience.