Gary Greenberg (gberg) Fri 19 Dec 08 08:34
>I think that the amount of money they are allowed to accept from >pharmaceutical companies should be dropped to zero. $10,000 is >still way too much. Well, you see, it's been scientifically established that 10 grand is the threshold at which corruption begins. >I also question whether medical clinicians are scientists. Certainly most practicing docs outside of research institutions are not also practicing scientists. But they speak a scientific language, and more important, they derive their authority from being steeped in the scientific tradition. THey were trained as scientists (think about the pre-med and med school curricula) and their knowledge comes from scientific journals and their practice is based on scientific knowledge.
Scott MacFarlane (s-macfarlane) Fri 19 Dec 08 10:09
"Well, you see, it's been scientifically established that 10 grand is the threshold at which corruption begins." $10k is also the threshold amount where banks and escrow companies are required to fill out a disclosure form for the IRS.
Gary Greenberg (gberg) Fri 19 Dec 08 12:54
Although, as Eliot Spitzer points out, banks are free to report any transactions under $10K that seem suspicious.
Elisabeth (wickett) Wed 24 Dec 08 11:08
I remain unconvinced about clinicians as scientists. I certainly wouldn't classify med students as scientists. They are busy cramming facts into their heads and learning skills, not questing, questioning, and repeating experiments. A certain distance and informed curiosity are just a couple of the essential qualities of a scientist, in my view. One of the reasons I mentioned the neurologist is because she noticed a phenomenon that cries out for scientific investigation. I suspect many clinicians see similar odd clumps of unexpected correlation or dissonance, the investigation of which could potentially lead to clearer diagnositic criteria and more effective treatments.
Gary Greenberg (gberg) Thu 25 Dec 08 02:06
I think what you're saying is that most clinicians don't meet your definition of what a scientist should be. I'm sure that's true. But "scientist" is not only a profession. It's an orientation toward knowledge, or an epistemology. And epistemologically speaking, whether they want to be or not, doctors are, to stretch the language a little, scientistic.
Elisabeth (wickett) Fri 26 Dec 08 06:44
I like "scientistic!" That describes well the interior view of the medical profession. The credence given to medical pronouncements by non-medical people, however, tends to skip over the gap between scientific and scientistic. I look forward to reading your book to see how you handle the distinction. I do not remember that the discussion here touched on that particular dissonance.
Hugh Watkins (hughw1936uk) Fri 26 Dec 08 17:33
some people are football fans I am a "science fan" eg aim to comprehend all sciences at the "Scientific American " level
Members: Enter the conference to participate