Is medical care a Right? (fwd)

[Alexander Berezin]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 10:02:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alexander Berezin <berezin at mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>
To: Opus <jlowe000 at ganet.net>
Subject: Re: Is medical care a Right?


On Mon, 17 Jun 1996, Opus wrote:

> >On Fri, 14 Jun 1996, jl4 wrote:
> >
> >> > (1) Can you be specific in defining what is 'top notch' as opposed to what
> >> > isn't ?
> >>
> >> Any think tank who's research is done using accepeted scientific methods.
> >
> >Individual scientists usually make many mistakes
> >but at least once in a while are right. Committee
> >('think tanks') are wrong in all times. This is
> >because even when individual members bring in some
> >sensible thoughts/suggesstion, they are invariably
> >smashed by the conformistic/corportae mentality
> >dominant in all commitees. Committeess exist to
> >diffuse responsibility, not to find solutions.
> 
> CATO studies are written by individuals, not committees.  Committees can
> also be used to share ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> >And what is 'accepted scientific method'
> >you mention above? Accepted by whom ?
> >This is highly questionable issue in
> >itself.
> 
> I guess you must have skipped science class in school.
> 
> 
> 
> >> > (2) What are these SPECIFIC 'research and  conclusions' reached at CATO
> >> > institute which have  an undeniable benefits to the health of the
> >> Americans
> >> > (and perhaps, health in general) ?
> >>
> >> You can research for yourself at http://www.cato.org.
> >
> >If something can be demonstrated only by
> >searching through the internet, the case does
> >not appalling to me as being particularly
> >strong at first place. It is likely pretty weak.
> >
> >Alex Berezin
> >
> >
> 
> You could also go to the library.  While your at it you could pick up a
> book on logical analysis and the scientific method....

Dear Opus:

I am not guessing what classes you skipped in school
or if you have had any - it is YOU who jumps to the 
suggestions of this kind about a person you don't know. 
I regrettfully conclude that it points to some weaknesses
in your personal logical inference apparatus.

If you care to educate yourself on the topics of
scientific method and its limitations, any university
bookstore can help you. Also, I suggest you read (as
a minimum) papers by Forsdyke, Osmond, Horrobin and
McCutchen from the attached list 

SOME REFERENCES ON PEER REVIEW AND FUNDING MODELS

Berezin, A. A. (1993). The SSC and peer review. Physics World 
(Dec.), 19. 

Berezin, A. A., R. Gordon & G. Hunter (1995). Anonymous peer   
     review and the QWERTY effect. Amer. Physics Soc. News,  
     March 1995. 

Berezin, A. A. & G. Hunter (1994). Myth of competition and NSERC
     policy of selectivity. Canadian Chemical News  46(3), 4-5. 

Forsdyke, D. R. (1983). Canadian medical research strategy for    
     the Eighties I. Damage-limitation or superelitism? Med.      
     Hypotheses  11, 141-145. 

Forsdyke, D. R. (1983). Canadian medical research strategy for    
     the Eighties II. Promise or performance as the basis for the 
     distribution of research funds? Med. Hypotheses  11,         
     147-156. 

Forsdyke, D. R. (1989). Sudden-death funding system. FASEB J.     
     3(10), 2221. 

Forsdyke, D. R. (1989). A systems analyst asks about AIDS         
     research funding. Lancet  2(December 9), 1382-1384. 

Forsdyke, D. R. (1991). Bicameral grant review: an alternative to 
     conventional peer review. FASEB J.  5, 2312-2314. 

Forsdyke, D. R. (1992). Bicameral grant review: how a systems     
     analyst with AIDS would reform research funding.
     Accountability in Research  3, 1-5. 

Forsdyke, D. R. (1993). On giraffes and peer review. FASEB J.  7, 
     619-621. 

Forsdyke, D. R.(1994). Authorship and misconduct. Nature 370, 91. 

Forsdyke, D. R. (1994). A theoretical basis for accepting         
     undergraduate academic record as a predictor of subsequent   
     success in a research career. Implications for peer review.  
     Accountability in Research  3, 269-274. 

Gordon, R. (1993). Grant agencies versus the search for truth. 
     Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance   
     2, 1-5. 

Gordon, R. (1993). Alternative reviews. University Affairs        
     (Assoc.of Universities and Colleges of Canada) 34(6), 26. 

Horrobin, D. (1981/1982). Peer review: Is the good the enemy of   
     the best?  J. Res. Communic. Stud.  3, 327-334. 

Horrobin, D. F. (1990). The philosophical basis of peer review    
     and the suppression of innovation. J. Amer. Med. Assoc.      
     263(10), 1438-1441. 

Kenward, Michael. (1984). Peer review and the axe murderers",
     New Scientist, 102 (1412), p. 13 (31 May, 1984). 

McCutchen, Charles W. (1991). Peer Review: Treacherous Servant,
     Disastrous Master. Technology Review, vol. 94, #7,  
     (October 1991), 28-40.

Osmond, D. H. (1983). Malice's Wonderland: research funding and   
     peer review. J. Neurobiol.  14(2), 95-112.

Savan, Beth. (1990). Science Under Siege (The Myth of             
     Objectivity in Scientific Research, CBC Enterprises,         
     Toronto, 1988. 

Szent-Gyorgyi, Albert. (1972). Dionysians and                     
      Apollonians, Science, 176, 966 (1972).
               
----------------------------------------------------------