 |
 |
On 02/17/98 Jim Slattery wrote: >For what it is worth, I set out here my own set of rules for deciding >whether or not any 'research' is valid or not: Thanks Jim for sharing your rules for evaluating research with us. I have never seen a better set of criteria. In today's paper there appeared an article about a speech US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer made to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which is meeting in Philadelphia. He was endorsing a movement among judges to appoint "neutral experts" to help them evaluate conflicting scientific evidence and to assist in separating solid evidence from "junk". In 1993 the US Supreme Court made a ruling that gave judges wider latitude in settling disputes with conflicting scientific evidence. Justice Breyer was quoted as saying, "judges have a legal responsibility to act as gatekeepers, not to resolve the scientific matter, but to keep unsound, unhelpful, unreliable information away from the jury." And they, like us, need help in making these judgements. Your set of guidelines would be a useful tool for any such neutral expert to utilize. It certainly would be a help in guiding those of us who either have PD, or care for someone who does, in evaluating the many claims for new drugs, health foods, or procedures that promise to benefit Parkinson's Disease. Martha Rohrer (CG for Neal, 77/12) [log in to unmask]