[Cz-health-sci] [Cz-biology] Merck proposal is NOT A GOOD IDEA
Dr. S N Sarbadhikari
supten at amrita.edu
Tue Oct 30 23:40:29 CDT 2007
The concerns raised by Anthony Sebastian and Diana Zuckerman are valid.
If there is a particularly good entry in Merck's Manual on any topic, a
topic-specific link may be provided by the Approving Editors.
However, routinely putting links would invariably cast doubts on the
authenticity of CZ.
With warmest regards
Subject: Re: [Cz-biology] Merck proposal From: "Anthony Sebastian"
Anthony_Sebastian at msn.com Date: Wed, October 31, 2007 9:11 am To:
"'Biology Workgroup List'"
cz-biology at mail.citizendium.org;cz-health-sci at mail.citizendium.org
The Merck Manual supplies seemingly authoritative articles, with many
assertions, but no source-citations. Linking CZ articles to corresponding
Merck Manual articles implies a recommendation without disclaimer. I would
vote against external links of that sort, even by Ph.D's/M.D.'s if they
receive pay from a for-profit organization. Content, one thing;
source-cited content another. Especially about medical conditions.
P.S. CZ authors/editors might profit by consulting the Merck Manual, for
example, to see if they missed some potentially important aspect of a
topic, but then research that from primary sources or creditable secondary
sources, and put the source-citations in their article.
> My email on this subject seems to have gotten lost, and I can't seem to
> send it to some of the mailng lists, so I am sending it again and ask that
> those of you with acces to all these list servs also send it for me.
> Since Merck is a pharmaceutical company that sells medical products, and
> since it already offers an online version of the Merck manual for free on
> the Internet, anything they submit should be VERY CAREFULLY reviewed
> individually on a case by case basis, with the understanding that it can
> be edited like any other article.
> Although the Merck manual has an excellent reputation, the company's
> reputation (particularly regarding disclosure of risks of Vioxx) is not so
> stellar. Please remember, the company's first loyalty MUST BE to their
> stockholders, not to the general public.
> For the last few years I have participated in numerous conferences and
> discussions at the Institute of Medicine and other venues about how
> pharmaceutical companies control much of the content in medical journals,
> continuing medical education courses, and presentations at medical
> conferences and grand rounds. It is a terrible idea to have them take
> over Citzendium too.
> If we want the Citizendium to have any credibility at all, we need to
> avoid any collaborations like the one proposed by Merck. That being said,
> it would be ok to check individual articles and decide on a case-by-case
> basis whether to use them.
> Diana Zuckerman, Ph.D.
> National Research Center for Women & Families
> 1701 K Street, NW, Suite 700
> Washington, DC 20006
> (202) 223-4000
More information about the Cz-health-sci