Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34825603›Full record

ArticleNew solutions : a journal of environmental and occupational health policy : NS2022

Truer Facts Through Stronger Values: Confronting Science's Sociopolitical Realities.

Nadja Eisenberg-Guyot, Jerzy Eisenberg-Guyot

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in New solutions : a journal of environmental and occupational health policy : NS, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Nadja Eisenberg-Guyot14772The Graduate Center, The City University of New York, New York, NY, USA.
Jerzy Eisenberg-Guyot33638Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3851-267X

Funding

BEHAVIORAL SCI TRAINING IN DRUG ABUSE RESEARCHT32DA007233 · NIDA · PUBLIC HEALTH SOLUTIONS · PI GOLDSAMT, LLOYD A · 1985 to 2023
$20.2M
RESEARCH TRAINING PROGRAM IN PSYCHIATRIC EPIDEMIOLOGYT32MH013043 · NIMH · COLUMBIA UNIV NEW YORK MORNINGSIDE · PI Katherine M. Keyes · 1985 to 2026
$11.7M
NIDA NIH HHS T32 DA007233NIMH NIH HHS T32 MH013043NIMH NIH HHS T32MH013043
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assaults on science have led scientists to demand "politics-free/values-free" science that safeguards science against error by grounding it in "politically neutral" evidence. Considering racial disparities in lead poisoning, HIV/AIDS, and COVID-19, we show the solution is doomed. Politically charged beliefs are essential for assessing public-health research; thus, the beliefs' truth affects the research's accuracy. However, science's sociopolitical uses systematically distort politically charged beliefs. Since errors assimilate into our scientific corpus and inform new hypotheses, scientists need accurate sociopolitical theories of distorting forces to identify errors. Analyzing Black-Panther opposition to violence research, we argue since racial disparities structure society and science has been distorted to buttress racial inequities, knowledgeable anti-racist scientists exert corrective forces on research. They hold accurate politically charged beliefs about sociopolitical forces shaping science and health, and are committed to eradicating distortions. Thus, rather than quarantining politically charged beliefs, scientists should sharpen their sociopolitical theories and normative commitments.

Indexed as

COVID-19HumansPoliticsRacial GroupsSARS-CoV-2anti-racismepistemologyhealth disparitieshealth inequitiesscientific methodologyvalues

Identifiers

PMID34825603
PMCPMC9190263

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.