Choice Meaning and Context: Two Sides of the Same Coin?

Abstract

Understanding problems invariably hinges on a carefully written explication, based on experimental evidence or theoretical analysis, exact description of the phenomena, the experimental settings, as well considering existing precedent and advances over existing literature as presented in this report. As with any discourse, presenting all facets of the issue to be probed has become the cornerstone of the success of scholarly advance where fallacies and/or errors in the interpretation of the results can be traced and corrected at a later time, provided the record in question is available for scrutiny, preferably free of charge to the research community and the general public alike. Here, we draw on previous examples to reiterate the advantages of presenting seemingly adversarial points of view in a given study to allow future examination to be carried out in the proper context.

Risk Evaluation Requires an Independent Mind

“…How far can one stretch the credible meaning of ‘contemporary references’ with the apparent preference of biomedical scholars to cite highly cited papers [ 1 , 2 ]? This bias could lead to unintended consequences, such as “sins of omission” with, in extreme cases, consequences relating to the validity of results [ 3 , 4 ], up to what Congress termed "minimal risk" as a guidance for review boards as they consider the approval of procedures [ 5 ].…”