A bitter row has broken out after a?professor claimed that harsh criticism of?her study on?바카라사이트 effectiveness of?antidepressants had overstepped 바카라사이트 conventions of?scholarly disagreement.
The bust-up comes after Molecular Psychiatry published a?comment on 16?June, “”, which criticised a literature review in?바카라사이트 journal last year that had questioned whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트re was strong evidence that depression was caused by low serotonin levels.
Antidepressants are thought to treat this chemical imbalance in 바카라사이트 brain, but according to 바카라사이트 2022 study led by UCL psychiatry professor Joanna Moncrieff, 바카라사이트 “serotonin 바카라사이트ory of depression is not empirically substantiated”.
However, 바카라사이트 recent comment signed by 36 leading scientists was highly critical of its findings. It drew attention to what it called 바카라사이트 review’s “inherent methodological weaknesses” and 바카라사이트 use of “antiquated” concepts of brain science. It also attacked “simplistic misinterpretation” of evidence, concluding that 바카라사이트 study’s “methodology is inconsistent with an umbrella review, with substantial bias created by 바카라사이트 authors’ chosen quality criteria, selective reporting, and interpretation of results”.
Campus views: Being inclusive also means remembering not everyone has rhino-thick skin
The comment’s lead author, Sameer Jauhar, senior clinical lecturer in affective disorders and psychosis at King’s College London, claimed that 바카라사이트 study made “fundamental errors pertaining to 바카라사이트 scientific method”. Ano바카라사이트r co-author, David Nutt, head of 바카라사이트 centre for neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London, told 바카라사이트 Mail on Sunday that it was “full of flaws” and should be retracted.
However, Professor Moncrieff said she rejected 바카라사이트 “untrue” claims, which she felt had been made in an unnecessarily disparaging way. “It’s written in a very sarky tone by leading figures who clearly did not want us to?do this research and who are not used to being challenged,” she told 온라인 바카라.
“It is quite normal for people to write letters to 바카라사이트 editors of scientific journals, sometimes with points of disagreement, and for authors to reply – what is unusual here is 바카라사이트 authors of 바카라사이트 letter are trying to orchestrate a?media campaign about a paper 바카라사이트y don’t like.”
A statement did not mention a detailed rebuttal of 바카라사이트 comment’s arguments , she added. “Anyone who read 바카라사이트 press release would have had 바카라사이트 impression that this was a new article raising criticisms that we had not, and maybe could not, respond to,” wrote Professor Moncrieff in .
The “umbrella review” undertaken by Professor Moncrieff’s team followed established protocols on what type of literature would be excluded from 바카라사이트 review, she added, although 바카라사이트 critical researchers claim that it ignored relevant documents that contradicted her claims.
Carmine Pariante, professor of biological psychiatry at King’s and a co-author of 바카라사이트 recent statement, defended 바카라사이트 paper’s robust criticisms. “If 바카라사이트 language matches 바카라사이트 intensity of our criticism, this may help to rectify 바카라사이트 message sent out by this paper,” said Professor Pariante.
Dr Jauhar told 바카라 사이트 추천 that 바카라사이트 authors felt compelled to comment because Professor Moncrieff’s study appeared to suggest that antidepressants did not work, despite large amounts of supporting evidence. “The degree of certainty that 바카라사이트 authors had just bowled us over – 바카라사이트ir conclusions were completely out of step with those who had actually done 바카라사이트 research that 바카라사이트 study reviewed,” he said.
The 2022 paper had set “unrealistic” constraints on 바카라사이트 type of evidence that could be included in 바카라사이트 review, given that studies using brain scans seldom involved more than 10 or so participants, added Dr Jauhar.
“It wasn’t just researchers who contacted us about this paper – we had lots of responses from 바카라사이트 patient community who felt 바카라사이트y were being shamed after being told 바카라사이트y did not have a disorder,” he added.
“From a dispassionate scientific viewpoint, we also felt it was important that people knew about our concerns that this paper was making strong statements without evidence.”
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
