Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
How could it be irresponsible to not publish something with an exceedingly low RR?
|
Because if the null hypothisis (null hypothesis means that the RR=1) turns out to be correct, that's important information for science to consider.
At the very beginning of this, you said you could find studies that disprove the cancer risk associated with secondhand smoke if you looked hard enough. If the science journals refuse to publish an article with a low RR, you're never going to be able to find those studies and the world gets a very incomplete picture of science. We would only see the extremes, and we would never see the subtle nuances and really figure out what has an impact on our health and what doesn't. Both sides of the story need to be fully examined, if only to discard a theory of risk.
And while the lower than 2 RR in the secondhand smoke lung cancer studies may be unimportant to you, it may be important to the estimated 3000 or so people a year who die of lung cancer because of second hand smoke. Or it may matter a little more to the person whose risk was already elevated due to family history or asbestos exposure back or radon exposure.
