Transparency at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
Transparency at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
复制标题
国际癌症研究机构 (IARC) 的透明度
DOI：
10.1016/s0140-6736(03)12634-7
复制
发表时间：
2003
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
P. Kleihues
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
P. Kleihues
先生，关于你关于IARC透明度的社论，1问题实际上是：该领域的专家与该领域外的专家。当该领域的专家被选中时，一些人会带着他们热情宣传和激烈捍卫的“真相”版本来，这使得他们在审查过程结束时会提出什么建议是可以预测的。另一些人则持开放的态度，愿意倾听甚至修改他们的观点。此外，当对正在处理的问题存在争议时，该领域专家工作组可能会加权，以反映现有意见的分布情况。因此，对证据的解释和支持也可以同样加权。无视不方便的证据和蔑视少数人的观点总是很诱人。这些问题对于共识小组来说可能是通用的。不幸的是，该领域以外的专家将不熟悉相关的“文献”。然而，组成专家小组的机构可能会认为，考虑让外地专家担任工作组主席并具体说明适用于所有参与者的甄选标准是有益的。国际癌症研究机构要求受邀专家在会议开始时申报利益冲突的程序并不能让人放心。认为在这一程序性小步舞曲之后必然会采取不偏不倚的做法是天真的。最后，理想情况下，IARC工作组的所有参与者都应该有机会审查工作组休会和出版之间的编辑工作，
Sir—With respect to your Editorial about transparency at IARC, 1 the issue really is: experts in the the field versus experts outside the field. When experts in the field are chosen, some will come armed with their zealously-promoted and ferociously-defended versions of the “truth”, making predictable what they will recommend at the end of the review process. Others come with open minds and a willingness to listen and even modify their views. Furthermore, when there is controversy about the issue being addressed, the working group of experts in the field is likely to be weighted to reflect the distribution of existing opinion. Thus, interpretation of, and support for, evidence might be similarly weighted. To disregard inconvenient evidence and disdain minority views is always tempting. These issues are probably generic to consensus panels.Unfortunately, experts outside the field will be unfamiliar with the relevant“literature”. However, agencies assembling expert panels might find it useful to consider experts outside the field to chair working groups and to specify the selection criteria applied for all participants. The IARC procedure requiring invited experts to declare conflicts of interest at the beginning of meetings does not reassure. To believe that this procedural minuet will necessarily be followed by the exercise of evenhandedness is naive. Finally, all participants in an IARC working group should ideally be given the opportunity to review the editing that occurs in the interval between group adjournment and publication,