Tim has covered the story regarding a new study on fetal pain which said an unborn child was unlikely to feel pain before 28 weeks.
A new story out today reveals something that I could have only guessed at: One of the authors in this case heads an abortion clinic. Why am I not surprised?
It does not mention that one author is an abortion clinic director, while the lead author - Susan J. Lee, a medical student - once worked for NARAL Pro-Choice America.JAMA editor-in-chief Catherine D. DeAngelis said she was unaware of this, and acknowledged it might create an appearance of bias that could hurt the journal's credibility. "This is the first I've heard about it," she said. "We ask them to reveal any conflict of interest. I would have published" the disclosure if it had been made.
I wonder why a former NARAL employee and an abortion clinic director didn't want the JAMA to know that they were involved in the abortion industry?
simply unbelievable - I think its important to remember that the "new study" drew all its conclusions from existing literature.
The JAMA authors clearly state that the article is compiled of research from many sources, so what difference does it make what their personal or professional views are? If the information was wrong, that would be a reason to get upset and attack the messengers. If the authors were the ones doing the research, that might be a reason to attack them or point to personal bias. Since neither of those conditions exist, how can anyone possibly think their personal views in some way "slanted" the report or blame them for the conclusions of other researchers? Some reason, please!