→Intro: fix my wording |
Denis Diderot (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
::: It is now not possible, and it will never be possible, to research the scientific basis and the possibility of fraud of the research, as Gillberg's associates have destroyed all material of the study. |
::: It is now not possible, and it will never be possible, to research the scientific basis and the possibility of fraud of the research, as Gillberg's associates have destroyed all material of the study. |
||
::: [[User:Fred Chess|Fred]]-[[User_talk:Fred Chess|Chess]] 23:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC) |
::: [[User:Fred Chess|Fred]]-[[User_talk:Fred Chess|Chess]] 23:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC) |
||
::::My previous comments were made in a hurry, so I'd like to clarify a bit. There was never any serious investigation into possible scientific misconduct, but there was of course some preliminary investigation to determine whether Elinder's and Kärfve's accusations deserved to be taken seriously. Among other things, the researchers and the research coordinator were interviewed. Gillberg and Rasmussen, the two researchers specifically accused by Kärfve, formulated a detailed response. After this preliminary investigation, the committee declared they they hadn't found any reason to suspect scientific misconduct. |
|||
::::[[User:Denis Diderot|Denis Diderot]] 13:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:19, 11 July 2006
I would like if this guy's name was mentioned in more pages, but perhaps he isn't that important? The only proper article page linking here is : Autism rights movement.
--Fred-Chess July 1, 2005 10:15 (UTC)
Lanced?
Should it say "launched" instead of "lanced"? It's not too clear from the context. To me, "lanced" would mean skewered, i.e. decisively defeated; this seems to be the opposite of what the article is saying, and is also the opposite of what I get out of his book on Asperger syndrome. If nothing else it's unencyclopedic, and the whole sentence in which it appears could be a great deal clearer.
(Speaking of Asperger's, the above person who complained about Gillberg not being mentioned enough will be pleased to know that he is prominently mentioned on Asperger's Syndrome in at least two different contexts.) PurplePlatypus 21:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- This change has (correctly) been made previously. "Lance" in English is here a faux ami to the Swedish word "lansera," which means to launch or introduce. --Tkynerd 19:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Intro
The article in BMJ doesn't support these claims at all. Gillberg was accused of fraud by a sociologist. The accusations were dismissed by the investigation committee as being without merit.
- Did you read both the BMJ links? The investigation is still ongoing and Gillberg now has criminal convictions. Your approach to editing this article is ill-considered. I have again reverted your changes. Your way of acting is inappropriate for Wikipedia. —Daphne A 20:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes of course I've read these articles. The conviction had nothing to do with accusations of scientific misconduct. It was for refusing to comply with a court order. A lower administrative court had ordered Gillberg and his colleagues to hand over patient data to the sociologist and her friend (in their private capacities). (The decision was based on the Principle of Public Access.) Gillberg and the others refused to comply in order to protect the privacy of their patients. There is no ongoing investigation of misconduct. There has in fact never been any such investigation since the accusations were found to be without merit. Perhaps you should be a bit more careful with your own accusations?
- Denis Diderot 21:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- The allegations of fraud were made by Eva Kärfve and Leif Elinder. While they have drawn a lot of attention to it, it must be stated that neither are educated neurologists -- Kärfve and Elinder critized Gillberg's research on the basis of their own theoretical and practical experience with children -- the associates of Gillberg did not bother greatly formulating a response, and Gillberg himself has not bothered at all.
- It is now not possible, and it will never be possible, to research the scientific basis and the possibility of fraud of the research, as Gillberg's associates have destroyed all material of the study.
- Fred-Chess 23:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- My previous comments were made in a hurry, so I'd like to clarify a bit. There was never any serious investigation into possible scientific misconduct, but there was of course some preliminary investigation to determine whether Elinder's and Kärfve's accusations deserved to be taken seriously. Among other things, the researchers and the research coordinator were interviewed. Gillberg and Rasmussen, the two researchers specifically accused by Kärfve, formulated a detailed response. After this preliminary investigation, the committee declared they they hadn't found any reason to suspect scientific misconduct.
- Denis Diderot 13:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)