Over the weekend a brouhaha has begun over the NEJM article that was well publicized in the mainstream media. I am no epidemiologist and it has been a few years since I was actively involved in developmental cardiology as a research topic so I am even more removed from cardiac rthyms. I have little to say about the validity of the findings. I am more interested in discussing how science should / should not be discussed, appropriate forms of criticisms as well as the overall immaturity / maturity of scientists. Dr. Isis discussed her opinion of the paper in her normal witty, sarcastic and disrespectful manner. Yes disrespectful. I personally did not take offense to her tone or manner, as I said in the comments. But I also do not take offense at SNL, the Daily show, The Colbert Report or even Mac commercials. Others do take offense, and as DrdrA pointed out, this is an international forum with multiple cultures that have a variety standards of what is or is not correct behaviour.
If Dr.Isis would like to critique scientific journals using a statirical take on it, she totally should because she is rather funny. BUT (you knew their had to be a but) then she is going to have to expect (1) comments that she may few snarky (2) realize that she is NOT modelling the behaviour she herself demanded and (3) understand that just like she doesn't always find her colleagues funny not everyone finds her funny.
I would also like to point out that the authors have made it very very clear that they do not have a problem with individuals / blogs discussing they report, they had an issue with the tone of the original post. Which brings me to CPP, what the hell is the point of name calling on a post that was meant to be a scientific discussio of the findings? If you want to name call, go do it on the original post. Seriously, you are an intelligent individual and by reducing yourself to the standards of my monkey, you are no better then the sick fuck republicans that you hate so much. Dialogue is so important if we are going to move forward on a variety of issues facing us. Can we grow up just a bit?
The biggest issue of all that has come out of this is how the mass media protrays researcher articles / letters. Jansky made a very good point in his comment about how the media choose to pick certain comments and not others. How do we has scientists ensure that our findings are correctly conveyed to the great community?
2 hours ago