Books et al.Science Policy

The art of misleading the public

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science  14 Feb 2020:
Vol. 367, Issue 6479, pp. 747
DOI: 10.1126/science.aba5495

eLetters is an online forum for ongoing peer review. Submission of eLetters are open to all. eLetters are not edited, proofread, or indexed.  Please read our Terms of Service before submitting your own eLetter.

Compose eLetter

Plain text

  • Plain text
    No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests
CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Vertical Tabs

  • RE: Informed Consumers against Controversy

    Provocateur: one who demands more government oversight and regulation on health and safety issues that affect every citizen regardless of party affiliation in spite of mountains of evidence that exists in the minds of the general public.

    Organizations such as the Federation of American Scientists (https://fas.org/) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (https://www.ucsusa.org/) should lead by example.

    The Institute of Medicine (IOM) published a consensus study in 1991, Biomedical Politics, six case studies about the interplay of scientists, interest groups, the U.S. Congress, federal agencies, and the public in determining biomedical public policy--and suggest how decision making might become more reasoned and productive in the future.

    The IOM, National Research Council, and National Academies have published ten related consensus studies: (a) Medical Technology Assessment Directory: A Pilot Reference to Organizations, Assessments, and Information Resources; (b) Clinical Applications of Mifepristone (RU486) and Other Anti-progestins: Assessing the Science and Recommending a Research Agenda; (c) Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy; (d) Women and Health Research: Ethical and Legal Issues of Including Women in Clinical Studies, Volume 1; (e) Society's Choices: Social and Ethical Decision Making in Biomedicine; (f) Enhancing the Vitality of the Na...

    Show More
    Competing Interests: None declared.

Stay Connected to Science