When the journal Science went to the dark side of knee-jerk alarmism, I took it with aplomb. When National Geographic changed their entire board of trustees, pissed in the face of countless decades of global respect and went as commercial as a suburban disco, I'll admit that stung a little. However, when I realised the depth of depravity at that bastion of all things British Commonwealth and medical, The Lancet, well, that hurt like a bitch.
Just to add insult to injury, in november of 2009, they launched an entire series of papers on the subject of "Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions". Yes, every paper in the series starts with that title, (no agenda there) and cover such topics as food and agriculture, land transport and low carbon fuel production to name a few. Refreshingly medical, isn't it? One feels that an alternatie appellation for the series could have been "Our underwear flies off at the slightest hint of funding: Is it getting warmer in here?"
Funding for the series came from a veritable galaxy of sources: The Wellcome Trust, Royal College of Physicians, Economic and Social Research Council, Department of Health, National Institute for Health Research, US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and the Academy of Medical Sciences, with support from the World Health Organization.
If you're going to whore yourself to public and political advantage, you might as well go high-class, I suppose.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Paua - this blog of mine might be relevant to the above:
ReplyDelete"Lancet’s Cryoagnosia: Health And Climate Change Report Between Citation Amnesia And Chinese Whispers"