I think it would be handy to have a thread where we can list authors of studies and their affiliations/conflicts of interest. This would make it easier to check them out.
What do you think?
If it’s a good idea, would it be better to have a separate post for each name (my preference) or posts containing whomever the poster has researched?
I don’t know how to do a poll, so if someone would post one, we could get a consensus.
Thanks.
There is a Resources subcategory under Show me the Science. What is your vision for this thread or category? I think it is a good idea if we can make it practical.
Show me the Science
~Resources
~ ~Studies and Articles
~ ~ ~Authors name, Article title (individual topic name.)
It seems it would be most useful if the induvidual thread titles were kept a consistant format… and I forsee managing that being like herding cats.
My vision is that there would be a subcategory under Resources for authors, not linked to what articles they authored, since there might be multiples.
On this thread, I searched the web for each of the authors and posted what I found.
What I envision is that there would be a post under Show Me the Science > Resources > Authors that had the person’s name in the title with their affiliation & conflicts of interests inside the post.
Samples
Title: Ostfeld, Robert J.
Body: Consultant for
Better Therapeutics
(from About Us on their website: 'We believe software is on the verge of disrupting medicine and becoming the accepted standard of care for treating diseases caused by behaviors.")
Pinnacle Foods
(from the landing page on their website: “Conagra Brands completed the acquisition of Pinnacle Foods.”)
and receiving a research grant from the Purjes Foundation
(from their website: "The Purjes Foundation is a private charitable trust organized under IRS rule 501©(3). It was established by Dan and Edna (“Ed”) Purjes and is solely funded and managed by them.
The Purjes Foundation’s mission is to fund greater public awareness to the benefits of a plant-based, whole foods lifestyle."
We focus on the importance of changing existing attitudes and behavior about food, and its direct impact on health. We aim to enlighten the public about the healing quality of plant-based nutrition, and its ability to prevent and reverse disease. We seek to support scientific research that affirms this position.
==================================================
Title: McMacken, Michelle
Body: Serving on the advisory board for Nutrinic Inc
(from About on their webpage: “Nutrinic is bringing an effective new therapy to the fight against chronic disease. We believe that solving this problem requires addressing its root causes and empowering patients to become their own best advocates on the path to better health. Our program is designed to halt—and even reverse—disease progression by combining evidence-backed nutrition with personal guidance, developing the patient’s inherent capacity for lifelong healthy decision-making.”
and as a faculty consultant to Sustainable Diet Inc.
(from About on their website: “Our goal is to empower YOU to lead the healthiest, fullest, happiest life possible, by supporting you through a challenging dietary transition and beyond. It is possible for each one of us to take control our health, and we have complete confidence that you can be successful - confidence that is grounded in scientific evidence and precedent. Our intention is that this information can serve people at all points of the plant-based spectrum.”
No other disclosures were reported.
I agree it’s a good idea. I’d also like to see something like the following oriented around specific studies and articles sub/cross-indexed by subject matter.
Show me the Science
~Resources
~ ~Studies and Articles
~ ~ ~Subject, Article title (individual topic name.)
Thanks.
I agree, and since it was my idea, I’ll volunteer to moderate/fix non-conforming posts, if that’s possible at my level of membership.
I don’t remember off the top of my head whether regulars (which is your level, Dee, and is the highest) can edit other members’ posts. (I know you can fix thread titles and move them to different categories.)
But here’s a method that may work even better: Start the thread with a post laid out as you would like to have it. Then turn the post into a wiki, by (1) clicking on the three dots below the post, then (2) clicking the wrench icon, and (3) selecting “Make Wiki” off the menu. I think a regular can do this, but if not, then notify any admin, and we’ll take care of it. But once the post is wiki-fied, anyone with the right trust level can contribute. And you know if you can edit a wiki post, because a pencil icon in a box will show up at the top right of the post for you.
Anyone who can’t edit a wiki can just post in the thread, and then people who are able to edit it can add the information as they have time.
If you have any questions, feel free to PM me, or the forum_admin group as a whole, and we’ll get you sorted.
Ok, so if I understand correctly what you want is a subcategory. Under the subcategory each topic would be one author. If they have more than one study or article it could all be referenced in that author’s topic. Is that correct? What should the subcategory be called?
Would this be a different format than the wiki that Paul suggested?
Ideally, I’d love to see a category of Authors with a separate post under it for each author.
As soon as we figure this out and youse guys (lol) let me know what format would work best, I can send it to you both for approval.
I’d also like to see a category of subjects cross referenced to authors. I think searching for subjects would be more useful than searching for authors. Any individual author may have published on multiple subjects.
The Authors category is to have a quick reference for checking each author’s conflict of interest and affiliations.
Not for seeing the papers they’ve published.
OK, that’s valid. But since the database has to be built, it can be utilized otherwise to make it even more useful. My contention is that if we’re going to bother doing this, we should make it usable to find authors and their papers as well.
The two ways aren’t mutually exclusive.
As I understand what he is saying, @PaulL is seeing this as one topic thread that lists all authors and their conflicts of interest. It would be a wiki and editable by anyone with a high enough trust level so they could add their own research.
What I understand you saying is that you want a separate topic for each author. The main advantage I see with this is that any discussion would be more likely to stick to the topic of that specific author. But there is no reason these posts could not also be wikis so they could be edited by any kind soul who wants to add to the information in the post.
If it is not a wiki, then people can add information by responding to the topic, as usual.
If @amwassil wants to volunteer to duplicate the posts titled by the study rather than the author, I bet having authors have their own thread would make his job easier.
Another thing to consider is how easily searchable the format will be, so titles are important.
Just let me know what category you want created and I’ll do that. If you want it to be a wiki, best ask Paul how to do that.
This sounds the best to me. Please create a category titled Author’s: Conflicts of Interest and Affiliations
I’ll add a post for each of the authors I’ve already researched and make each one a wiki. I think that will be an easier-to-use-format instead of a lot of replies on each author thread for users to sort through.
The category description I suggest:
*This category lists each author by Last name, First name and provides an easy-to-reference list of their conflicts of interest and/or affiliations.
To add to an author’s wiki, please open the wiki for that author and add the new information in the format that is already shown.
If an author does not already have a wiki, please create a new post/wiki for that person, using the format that is used in the other authors’ listing.
If you do not know how to create a wiki, please notify one of the admins and they will convert it for you.*
By the way, Dee, thanks for doing this. It’s a big task but valuable to understand inadvertent as well as deliberate biases. I mean, everybody works for someplace and simply working for that place doesn’t mean they’re biased if the company doesn’t try to make them biased. Some of those places do encourage bias and those are the important places to know about.
It wasn’t until I started paying attention to places like the Kellogg Foundation, and what I call Big Vegetarian, that I realized there even was such at thing and how much they influenced dietary “common knowledge”. There are examples everywhere, like how they got Dr. Gary Fettke banned from practicing medicine because he was telling people how to save their feet rather than just amputating them.
They’re pushing a diet that works for a few percent of the population and hurts something like 2/3 of us.
You’re welcome, but I’m just the initiator. It’ll hopefully be a community project and we’ll end up building a great resource.