The “news” that a top neuroscientist linked the use of some social websites to children’s shortened attention spans, encouragement of instant gratification and young people becoming more self-centred, spread around the world like a bush fire but, is there any substance behind that claim or we are in the presence of yet another instance of irresponsible attention seeking by a “supposedly” top scientist, which is permitted (and encouraged by courts) and could have impact on peoples lives and companies valuations?During a short period of studies in the US during the early 1990s I came across an expression that I have always treasured for being able to synthesise a complex idea in a word: a McPaper. Some students used it when they had written a paper that had been done quickly and it was not of a good quality. In that context, I think that is fair to say that, as presented, the science behind the article’s claim could/should be catalogued as McScience.
The article that started the media frenzy on the topic does not resist the most minimum analysis: if any of my undergraduate students submit a paper with that quality would fail automatically. The article quotes Baroness Greenfield saying that her “fear is that these technologies are infantilising the brain into the state of small children”, but does not offer any evidence of suggestion of any proper study on the topic. Goes further in the transvestite of science by saying that “Lady Greenfield told the Lords a teacher of 30 years had told her she had noticed a sharp decline in the ability of her pupils to understand others”…are we going to make such a general statement about the implications of the use of a technology based on the opinion of one teacher?! Have the scientific standards slipped that low?! While anecdotal evidence can be used to highlight a fact already proven through extensive investigations and is used in presentations to give a sense of connection with the reality to very arid topics, to base a conclusion on anecdotal evidence seems an extreme violation of any form of research methodology rules. Some of the other claims are statements of fact that don’t add much to the science behind the general claim. The fact that “[s]atellite navigation systems have negated the need to decipher maps” is as true as saying that the existence of off the shelf knives have negated the need to know how to carve a stone to make a cutting tool…that is what technology does: it allows you to free mental and material resources and use them in something that is more profitable or gives you more pleasure…
But these sort of scientist have gotten a level of recognition that make them and others believe that they are beyond the rules of normal scientific standards, and the courts have played a part in that. For years courts have used these renowned scientists as expert witnesses without paying much attention to the real science behind their claims, only focusing on the “status” of the expert, aiding and abetting several instances of miscarriage of justice. The situation of Professor Sir Roy Meadow is the one that first comes to mind when courts are plainly complicit in allowing these seudo-scientist to carry on with their activities that leave a trail of pain and suffering while rewarding them with the fame and the honours. The first part of the story begins with a paper where this person puts forward a theory that there are people that hurt others, specially their children, in order to get attention from the medical personnel, followed by a trail of not independently corroborated evidence showing that his theory is correct and ending in becoming the preferred expert witness for the prosecution in cases where children accidents or death were suspected of being caused by their parents (suspicion raised by following Meadows own theories). The second part of the story is that the very common sense conclusion that his theories were unsubstantiated became finally accepted (the first time I heard the idea that two cot deaths in a family pointed to murder I thought that it should actually point to a genetic or environmental issue, and couldn’t not believe that people were sent to jail based in such weird theory) and that it was shown in court that the statistical evidence used by Meadows was appallingly flawed. The third and shameful part is that the General Medical Council struck him of his license to practice medicine and in two decisions that cast serious doubts into the suitability and capacity of some English judges, the High Court first and the Court of Appeal later ruled that that Meadow's misconduct was not sufficiently serious to merit the punishment which he had received (even it was said in the House of Lords that Meadows work was “one of the most pernicious and ill-founded theories to have gained currency in childcare and social services in the past 10 to 15 years. It is a theory without science. There is no body of peer-reviewed research to underpin MSbP. It rests instead on the assertions of its inventor. When challenged to produce his research papers to justify his original findings, the inventor of MSbP stated, if you please, that he had destroyed them"). In order to decide how serious the misconduct was, it is important to remember that it was based on his expert testimony that Sally Clark was convicted of murdering her two children and, after courts finally understood that they were punishing the victim, and that she then died of alcoholic poisoning due to never recovering for the loss of her children and the subsequent jail time.
Then you have the case of the MMR saga/fiasco. There, Andrew Wakefield claimed to have found a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. The claim contradicts every serious study on the topic and due to its publication millions have been spent in testing its veracity. The claim has affected public policy in certain places and, worst of all, it has lead to a sudden drop in the percentage of children receiving the vaccine, which in turn resulted in the reappearance of measles as a common disease in England. Most scientists on the topic have discredited the theory, there seems to be evidence that the data to support the claim was manipulated and the GMC has presented allegations of serious professional misconduct. To put some judicial weight into the matter, the US Special Court of Federal Claims ruled that the allegations that the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine contributed to autism were "speculative and unpersuasive" and that "the weight of scientific research and authority" pointing to the opposite was "simply more persuasive on nearly every point in contention." An issue that cannot escape the analysis is the claim that Wakefield received major funding from trial lawyers seeking evidence to sue the vaccine makers and that he previously filed for a patent on a rival vaccine…and the courts? While a suit for professional negligence, in principle viable because Wakefield failed to “act in accordance with a practice which is accepted as proper by a responsible body of men schooled in the particular art” (Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee 1957) could only filled but those that suffer a damage and that had enough proximity (the parents of the kids that died of the disease are too remote to sue), if the claims about the funding and rent-seeking through the patent are true, there is a strong argument to ask the CPS to look into s2 of the Fraud Act 2006. But following the very strange decisions in the Meadows case, one can wonder whether the judges would find that creating a scare that resulted in the reappeareance of an almost forgoten disease for gain could be consider serious enough...
At the same time that all this attention/rent-seeking is taking place, companies are battling against very tough markets, which may make them more succeptible to being affected by negative rumours and ill-conceived regulation. If the response to the increase of obesity in children was to ban certain type of food’s advertisement during children pogrammes on TV, it is not far-fetched to imagine that some minister looking for publicity or just not having a clue what he/she is doing (there are plenty of those around lately), would propose some sort of regulatory framework or information campaing so people, especially youngsers, use social networking sites less than now. This would affect the market size of these companies and, just before going through an IPO, that could be very damaging for any of the companies’ valuation…would the Baroness be liable in anyway in such eventuality if the link that she fears cannot be seriously proven? Would judges be held into account for decisions where the status of the person in question is more important than the substance of what that person claims and than the damage that the person’s irresponsability causes to the public and or companies? It is time that courts forget much of the snobbery that comes with the titles and start using the same legal principles for everyone, remembering that with more honours and fame comes more responsibility…
No comments:
Post a Comment