Ad hominem attacks on scientists can be as damaging as critiques of their evidence

Any allegations of past bad behavior, whether directly relevant or not, made a researcher’s claims appear suspect By Alex Fradera To punch holes in a scientific claim, it’s legitimate to critique the supporting evidence, or query the way the evidence has been interpreted. More questionable is to throw dirt on the character or capability of the researcher making the claim. New research in PLOS One explores the effectiveness of ad hominem attacks against scientists and shows that some are more damaging than others.  Ralph Barnes of Montana State University and his team asked around 500 undergraduate students to review a number of scientific claims, each attributed to a named researcher, such as “Dr Martinez”. The claims were either obscure or invented, to avoid hot-button issues where the participants might already have strong immovable views (e.g. “According to Dr. Martinez at the University of Oklahoma, dibutylphthalate, a chemical used in Gold Bond foot powder, decreases the risk of some kinds of cancer”).  All the claims came with additional information that was either neutral (it didn’t challenge the claim) or that critiqued the researcher (ad hominem attacks) or the science behind his or her claim (e.g. pointing out issues with the supporting study itself, like the lack of a control group).  The ad hominem attacks either referred to past misconduct, like fabrication of previous data, conflict of interest (e.g. financed by a drug company with int...
Source: BPS RESEARCH DIGEST - Category: Psychiatry & Psychology Authors: Tags: Social Source Type: blogs