Abstract
I have some counter comments on the guest editorial by Dr. Iain Taylor. 1
In my opinion, the editorial is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. A lot of what is fed to us as evidence-based information can also be accused of being information crafted (or censored) to meet a particular policy agenda.
Peer review journals are guilty of a certain degree of their own kind of censorship. It frequently happens that research results in contradiction with preferred theories will be deemed failed research and will not be published. In the academic world of “publish or perish,” this is a strong incentive to only do research that supports the right ideological prejudices. Everybody with a Bachelor of Science degree has first-hand experience with “tweaking” results so you get what you are supposed to get.
As people who bring the practical application of science to the public good, we owe it to our clients to be cautiously sceptical of ALL our sources of information. Peer-reviewed journals, therapeutics textbooks, treatment guidelines, advertising and promotional liturature, industry-sponsored continuing education: Any of it could be tainted with misinformation designed to increase sales for a product that may or may not be the best option for our clients.
There are 3 sides to every story — your side, my side, and the truth. If we all had the luxury of hearing the other side of the story in each of the 3 cases cited by Dr. Taylor, I doubt a majority of us would agree in favour of either side.
In the information age, all information is suspect. Whatever the source, there will always be somebody with an allegation of information engineering. What do you expect the government to do when they cannot trust the truthfulness of their sources of information?