I'm glad to see that you've noticed this. I think it is a big deal. If nothing else it's forcing the issue of scientific honesty, and indeed what we shoudl require of scientists, to the forefront of debate.
I think the whole thing is fascinating. What we know, what we don't know, the way people behave, what they don't want us to know.
It's amazing how many assumptions it's possible to sweep under the carpet in the quest to publish studies. It's also amazing how much intelligent people can disagree upon. But the key is for those people to have a dialog and to work out their differences, rather than pick camps and then just sit there slinging slurs at each other.
Each side of this issue accuses the other of being discredited. The difference is that one side actually produces evidence, and the other relies on their reputation and status. I know which horse I'd put my money on in that race.
I think the whole thing is fascinating. What we know, what we don't know, the way people behave, what they don't want us to know.
It's amazing how many assumptions it's possible to sweep under the carpet in the quest to publish studies. It's also amazing how much intelligent people can disagree upon. But the key is for those people to have a dialog and to work out their differences, rather than pick camps and then just sit there slinging slurs at each other.
Each side of this issue accuses the other of being discredited. The difference is that one side actually produces evidence, and the other relies on their reputation and status. I know which horse I'd put my money on in that race.