True, but this does not justify the use of enhancing substances by publicly-funded scientists. To condone such behaviour would be to initiate an arms race in which, to have a chance of winning funding, all scientists would be compelled to take these substances.
I'm also not sure that you can make a clean distinction between science and sport. Science is about explaining the world, but it's also a social activity, and is not devoid of moral content. For example, scientists working in western countries would be strongly sanctioned for using or collecting data in poor countries by means which would not be ethical in their own (granted that some medical trials may test this boundary).
It's true the data is the same, but these types of analyses have been around for about 10 years now. Specifically the lead author has published a number of times with similar analyses. The key problem has been getting pharma firms to release the unpublished data. See:
Kirsch, I. & Sapirstein, G. (1998). Listening to Prozac but Hearing Placebo: A Meta-Analysis of Antidepressant Medication. Prevention & Treatment, 1.
Kirsch, I., Moore, T., Scoboria, A., & Nicholls, S. (2002). The Emperor's New Drugs: An Analysis of Antidepressant Medication Data Submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Prevention & Treatment, 5.
Kirsch, I. (2002). Yes, There Is a Placebo Effect, but Is There a Powerful Antidepressant Drug Effect? Prevention & Treatment, 5, Article 22.
These are all serious peer reviewed articles in decent journals.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but this does not justify the use of enhancing substances by publicly-funded scientists. To condone such behaviour would be to initiate an arms race in which, to have a chance of winning funding, all scientists would be compelled to take these substances. I'm also not sure that you can make a clean distinction between science and sport. Science is about explaining the world, but it's also a social activity, and is not devoid of moral content. For example, scientists working in western countries would be strongly sanctioned for using or collecting data in poor countries by means which would not be ethical in their own (granted that some medical trials may test this boundary).
It's true the data is the same, but these types of analyses have been around for about 10 years now. Specifically the lead author has published a number of times with similar analyses. The key problem has been getting pharma firms to release the unpublished data. See: Kirsch, I. & Sapirstein, G. (1998). Listening to Prozac but Hearing Placebo: A Meta-Analysis of Antidepressant Medication. Prevention & Treatment, 1. Kirsch, I., Moore, T., Scoboria, A., & Nicholls, S. (2002). The Emperor's New Drugs: An Analysis of Antidepressant Medication Data Submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Prevention & Treatment, 5. Kirsch, I. (2002). Yes, There Is a Placebo Effect, but Is There a Powerful Antidepressant Drug Effect? Prevention & Treatment, 5, Article 22. These are all serious peer reviewed articles in decent journals.