March 28, 2008
FOUR FOR FRIDAY
Q1 - Research: A study published in 2006 in The New England Journal of Medicine, which claimed up to 80% of lung cancer cases could be prevented with CT scans, has been revealed to have been underwritten, in part, by a cigarette company. An investigation uncovered what some say is an undisclosed conflict of interest in the study, which was authored by the Weill Cornell Medical College. Generally speaking, how much stock do you place in research studies, and do you now question the validity of this one because of who paid for it?
Q2 - Airline Safety : In this post- 9/11 world of ours, airline safety is said to be key, but it may not be Federal Air Marshals who are keeping the nation's flights safe. According to news reports earlier this week, Air Marshals themselves say they are only on about 1% of the 28,000 or so flights that take off or land in the U.S. each day. Are you surprised to learn that so few flights are protected by Air Marshals?
Q3 - March Madness: This is the time of the year that college basketball fans and at least some who could care less join in on what is often referred to as a March Madness Basketball Pool. Whether it's for money or just for fun, did you fill out a March Madness Bracket for this year's Men's or Woman's Division I Basketball Tournament, and if you did, how is your bracket fairing?
Q4 - Which Matters More: In an article in today's BBC News, Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, who depicted the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, says he will sue the maker of an anti-Islam film for using his cartoon without permission. According to the BBC, Westergaard told Danish TV that his cartoon was a "protest against terrorism, not Islam as a whole." They have "a right to make [sic: a] movie but.. not permission to use my drawing." Based on what I just you, what do you feel is the most important issue at stake in this story... religious intolerance, intellectual property rights, free speech, or zealotry?
Posted by Mikal at March 28, 2008 3:02 PM
| TrackBack
Q1 - I don't have a whole lot of confidence in medical studies. When doctors around the country start talking about it, I'll trust it.
Q2 - To be honest, I hadn't really thought about who was keeping us safe. I just want to know that I am safe.
Q3 - Yes, I filled out a mens bracket and I have pretty much sucked it up this year. Last year I entered in with over 100 different people and ended up taking 3rd! This year, I'm probably 3rd from last.
Q4 - I don't have an opinion on it.
Q1 - I always come back to the eggs thing, where one week eggs are good for you, the next they are bad. It seems like with every step forward, we find out 3 other things are bad.
Q2 - Not surprised in the least. it would cost a bazillion dollars to have an air marshal on anything higher then 1% of the flights. we can't afford it and I doubt it makes flights any safer.
Q3 - Yes. Not good.
Q4 - I'm so confused... I think the artist has a good point, they should have had permission, so i guess... property rights?
Q1 - I always come back to the eggs thing, where one week eggs are good for you, the next they are bad. It seems like with every step forward, we find out 3 other things are bad.
Q2 - Not surprised in the least. it would cost a bazillion dollars to have an air marshal on anything higher then 1% of the flights. we can't afford it and I doubt it makes flights any safer.
Q3 - Yes. Not good. not. good. at. all.
Q4 - I'm so confused... I think the artist has a good point, they should have had permission, so i guess... property rights?
1. Research: Funny you should ask that of me right at this moment. I was asked at work today to get some stats. So I did. I sent them back to the person requesting them with a note stating, "If these don't support what you want them to support, let me know and I'll find some studies that do." So, that pretty much tells you what I think about any study.
2. Airline Safety: Surprised? Nope. But only because I don't really think about it. Theoretically, bad guys shouldn't be able to even get on the plan to begin with, so I'm not too concerned about whether there's a good guy with a loaded gun on my plane or not. I think I'm more worried about him shooting a hole in the window and having all my blood sucked out of my eye sockets due to the sudden and extremely violent Hollywood-style decompression.
3. March Madness: No brackets for me. I don't know the difference between a Ute and a Cougar, so...
4. Which Matters More: Uhh... intellectual property? I wouldn't say that the other stuff is really at stake. If the cartoonist loses the lawsuit however, then intellectual property everywhere is going to be at risk of getting stolen and used for all sorts of crazy purposes, like that time I painted bikinis and "evil" curly mustaches on those nude Greek sculptures (yeah, painting the bikinis on the male sculptures was REALLY tough!)
Q1 - the picture of the cats freaked me out. What was the question?
Q2 - Not surprised at all. I never think about air marshals on flights anyway...more concerned if the wheels will function properly on my flights.
Q3 - No, didn't do a bracket....haven't done one of those in years.
Q4 - Property rights.
1. I don't put a lot of stock in studies like this because there are just too many factors to really trust that A leads to B when you're talking about human physiology, most of it is just too complicated to boil down like that. I'm not surprised at all that funding from company A leads to result B, though.
2. Can't say that I thought there were getting on even that many flights, nor have I ever felt like the chances of a terrorist on my flight we very high given the level of interogation the good guys have to go through to get on the plane.
3. I did a bracket, and so far so good. I entered the same picks in a dozen or so pools and I'm sitting in 1st or 2nd in most for the moment (knock on wood).
4. While the issues are all important, I think the anti-Islam film as a messenger of intolerance is a hugh social issue. I'm not really in favor of censorship, but when one person does something hateful like this, it pushes all of us further apart.
q1: Studies like statistics almost always need to be taken with a grain of salt. Unless of course it support something I already believe...then it needs no extra validation. Finding out that a conflict of interest party has funded in part or whole a study definitely makes assume the opposite is closer to the truth.
q2: No
q3: Yes. Depending on the group I'm 1st to 3rd from last :) all the same bracket too.
q4: Intellectual property.
1. I rarely read medical studies. If it's coming from the tobacco companies, I'm sure they skew it to make them look better.
2. No, I'm not surprised, but I like to think there is one on every flight I take.
3. Not watching, don't care.
4. Intellectual property.
Q1. I am very skeptical when it comes to research studies. I truly believe most of them to be smoke and mirrors. I have seen it first hand in the auto industry and I can’t imagine the medical field is much different.
Q2. No I am not surprised at all. What does surprise me is that we (the US) continue to shot ourselves in the foot by releasing information that has the potential hurt us. Hello! Mr. Terrorist we are not at our post once again. UGH!
Q3. Out of the 192 possibilities I hit rock bottom early on. Poor Michigan State (I had to add that). Maybe next year with the Final Four in the big “D” my luck will change.
Q4. I can hardly decide which matters more…If he is truly interested in promoting free speech, I would assume he would want the movie makers have the same freedom.
I usually ignore them entirely. In a few weeks time, a competing study will be published that will supposedly debunk the earlier one, but the big problem with most of these studies is that generally one small bit is taken from them and trumpeted as a miracle cure for the disease in question. Oh yeah... and the fact that industry usually funds them. This study is apparently scandalous because tobacco companies funded it, but heck, even that "Breakfast is the most important meal of the day" crap we were (and are still) told was funded by the cereal companies way back when.
2. Not really, knowing that Homeland Security (?) only has the manpower to inspect 10% of incoming shipments from overseas after eight years of empty rhetoric about securing our ports. As with everything the current administration does, the appearance of doing what they said they'd do is more important than actually doing it.
3. I usually don't bother.
4. Intellectual property.
1. *stock in research studies* I don't know, nothing seems like its very transparent any more, and to know that this was funded by a tobacco business, at least in part, it would beg the question as to why they would donate money in the first place and why the researchers would agree, or seek them out as a funding source. Unless is was almost globally agreed upon, among many unassociated peer reviewed study sources, then I would take the results with a grain of salt.
2. *air marshalls* no, it seems like most security measures are being made to limit the individuals choice rather than to address problems directly. Its not a suprise where there is requirement to spend a lot of money the security is not there, and where there is a chance to obtain information that can lead to gaining a lot of money the regulations are being put in place (patriot act). I think its simply driven by lobbying interests and the buddy system in congress with its revolving door.
3. *NCAA Brackets* Nah it kind of looked like fun and maybe a good excuse for a seasonal hobby (wtf is a seasonal hobby lol), but ultimately I just can't get into it.
4.*Anti-Islamic film suit* That's a tough one, but if I was the judge on this I would say more hate mongering in the form of personal freedom is not doing the public any good and the fact that it is an unauthorized use of intellectual property that he (Danish dude) has a legit case.
1 - I hate to say this, Mikal, but I have to be reading it wrong - the study maybe showed that up to 80% of lung cancer cases could have been caught early enough to be better treated with a CT scan - I can't imagine the scans would prevent the disease. As far as the tobacco co paying for it-- it's about time. But for a study like this I don't know how it would matter. It doesn't absolve the tobacco co of anything, nor help in the future with any lawsuits or anything. The earlier cancers are diagnosed, the greater the chances of putting them into remission. They don't generally talk "cures" for cancer. (Sorry, this subject touches very close to home...)
2 - Doesn't surprise me. In following the news and having travelled, very little seems to make sense in the "safety" precautions and you can't really believe that we have the $$ to put air marshalls on more flights.
3 - Not in any pools this year nor have I been in the past. Around here it seems to be football baby...
4 - I'd say the rights of intellectual property. I would think the cartoonist should have the right to deny the use of his cartoon, even if it was published in a public forum, to be used in a manner opposite from what it was intended. Freedom of speech means you can say what you want, not that you can use someone else's works to say what you want.
Q1: First off, how can a CT Scan possibly prevent lung cancer? Maybe it can help detect it earlier, but prevent it? I put some stock in medical studies and science as a whole. Who finances the study doesn't bother me all that much, as long as you have true scientists doing the study. Scientists who have an agenda really give science a bad name, I think... as is the case with global warming. They should keep their lips sealed until they have at least somewhat conclusive evidence. (By the way, I did read an article recently stating that breathing cow manure dust significantly reduces the risk of developing lung cancer. Soon, I expect to be seeing cow manure inhalers on the shelves of the local pharmacies.)
Q2: Yes, that is a little surprising. I was thinking they'd be on maybe 10% of flights. It doesn't worry me, though.
Q3: I've been kind of busy, and this is one of the things I let slip. I do enjoy participating in these pools, though - it makes the entire event more enjoyable.
Q4: Maybe not the most important issue, but I think Westergaard has a right to be upset and express it. (As for suing, I'm generally against it, and he should be, too.) If the movie were simply a documentary, that's one thing, but if it's propaganda using his cartoon as ammunition, then it's wrong.
Q1 - I do think it is a conflict of interest for a suspect organization or product (like tobacco) to underwrite a study and then have that study published as fact. I am always looking for an outside firm / organization or a second firm to validate the findings before accepting them as fact.
Q2 - Airline Safety : I honestly thought that there were more air marshals too. I was very surprised when I discovered our airlines are choosing to cut costs in that area. It would be a tragic day if another airplane was used as a weapon against the USA. Maybe we should use some of the $12B spent in Iraq this year to staff more air marshals!?!?
Q3 - I kinda like March Madness, and I follow it when time allows, but I chose not to participate in any pools or brackets.
Q4 - Which Matters More: Looks like Mr. Westergaard just got pulled into a religious war to me, and his attempted protest just got minimized. He should have elected to let the cartoon propagate where ever needed to make his point ... in my opinion. He might have been defamed a little by the Islamic papers, news, movies, etc., and that is the price he paid when he chose to protest.
Post a Comment:
|
