Associated Press in the late 1980s: Papers differ on effects of pill on heart.
Boston: Two papers examining the effects of estrogen pills on older women's hearts reached the New England Journal of Medicine at exactly the same time. One suggested that the hormone prevents heart disease, the other that it causes it. Both studies were found to be VALID, and both are being published today's issue of the journal. The conflicting results, say experts, hold lessons about how science works and what should be made of its conclusions.
Boston: Two papers examining the effects of estrogen pills on older women's hearts reached the New England Journal of Medicine at exactly the same time. One suggested that the hormone prevents heart disease, the other that it causes it. Both studies were found to be VALID, and both are being published today's issue of the journal. The conflicting results, say experts, hold lessons about how science works and what should be made of its conclusions.
'This illustrates that one should never take as gospel what is published in the New England Journal of Medicine but should take it as the current state of the art,' said Dr. Jay Winsten, assistant dean of the Harvard School of Public Health. 'IF ONLY ONE GROUP HAD SUBMITTED TO THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL, OR ONE HAD ARRIVED A FEW DAYS EARLIER, THE PRESS WOULD BE REPORTING ONE CONCLUSION OR THE OTHER DEPENDING ON THE LUCK OF THE DRAW.'
Dr. Marcia Angell, deputy editor of the journal, said the papers were sent independently to outside Experts for evaluation, and both appeared to be well done and worth publishing. So the weekly magazine ran them back to back. 'No study we publish came down to us on a tablet,' she said. 'There's always a possibility that something is missing or that something is wrong. I think it's a nice reminder that science is fallible.'
(Caps are my emphasis.)
I am not bashing science or scientific investigating. I am looking at how much we influence those things that we want to be true and how much we depend on someone else's belief
Dr. Marcia Angell, deputy editor of the journal, said the papers were sent independently to outside Experts for evaluation, and both appeared to be well done and worth publishing. So the weekly magazine ran them back to back. 'No study we publish came down to us on a tablet,' she said. 'There's always a possibility that something is missing or that something is wrong. I think it's a nice reminder that science is fallible.'
(Caps are my emphasis.)
I am not bashing science or scientific investigating. I am looking at how much we influence those things that we want to be true and how much we depend on someone else's belief
RSS Feed