Suchergebnisse

Politics and science make strange bedfellows. In politics, perceptions are reality and facts are negotiable. The competing interests, conflicting objectives, and trade-offs of political negotiations often lend themselves to bending the truth and selectively interpreting facts to shape outcomes. In science, facts are reality. This collection examines the conflicts that arise when politics and science converge. In Politicizing Science: The Alchemy of Policymaking, eleven leading scientists describe the politicization through misapplication or overemphasis of results that favor a political decision or through outright manipulation of scientific findings and deliberations to advance policy agendas.

In this book leading scientists share their experiences and observations of developing and testing hypotheses, offering insights on the dangers of manipulating science for political gain. It describes how politicization--whether by misapplication, overextension, or outright manipulation of the scientific record to advance particular policy agendas--imposes expenditures of money, missed opportunities, and burdens on the economy.

United States regulatory agencies use no‐threshold models for estimating carcinogenic risks. Other countries use no‐threshold models for carcinogens that are genotoxic and threshold models for carcinogens that are not genotoxic, such as 2, 3, 7, 8‐tetrachlorodibenzo‐P‐dioxin (TCDD or "dioxin"). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a revision of the carcinogenic potency estimate for TCDD that is based on neither a threshold nor a no‐threshold model; instead, it is a compromise between risk numbers generated by the two irreconcilably different models. This paper discusses the revision and its implications.

SILENCING SCIENCE -- CONTENTS -- PREFACE -- INTRODUCTION -- CHAPTER 1 STOPPING SCIENCE -- CHAPTER 2 STOPPING THE FLOW OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION -- CHAPTER 3 FILLING THE VOID WHEN SCIENCE IS SILENCED -- CHAPTER 4 A CAUTIONARY NOTE -- CHAPTER 5 A FINAL WORD -- ABOUT THE AUTHORS

The highly infectious and pathogenic novel coronavirus (CoV), severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV-2, has emerged causing a global pandemic. Although COVID-19 predominantly affects the respiratory system, evidence indicates a multisystem disease which is frequently severe and often results in death. Long-term sequelae of COVID-19 are unknown, but evidence from previous CoV outbreaks demonstrates impaired pulmonary and physical function, reduced quality of life and emotional distress. Many COVID-19 survivors who require critical care may develop psychological, physical and cognitive impairments. There is a clear need for guidance on the rehabilitation of COVID-19 survivors. This consensus statement was developed by an expert panel in the fields of rehabilitation, sport and exercise medicine (SEM), rheumatology, psychiatry, general practice, psychology and specialist pain, working at the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre, Stanford Hall, UK. Seven teams appraised evidence for the following domains relating to COVID-19 rehabilitation requirements: pulmonary, cardiac, SEM, psychological, musculoskeletal, neurorehabilitation and general medical. A chair combined recommendations generated within teams. A writing committee prepared the consensus statement in accordance with the appraisal of guidelines research and evaluation criteria, grading all recommendations with levels of evidence. Authors scored their level of agreement with each recommendation on a scale of 0–10. Substantial agreement (range 7.5–10) was reached for 36 recommendations following a chaired agreement meeting that was attended by all authors. This consensus statement provides an overarching framework assimilating evidence and likely requirements of multidisciplinary rehabilitation post COVID-19 illness, for a target population of active individuals, including military personnel and athletes.