How Cultural Evaluators Filter, Interpret, And Relinquish

The documentary “Merchants of Doubt” directed by Robert Keener describes the unethical practices of manipulating scientific data to market unsafe products. It explains the use of public relations and media to divert the health risk involved in smoking in order to protect the industry. The documentary exposes how companies hire a third party, presented as credible scientific expert, to mislead people about the company’s unsafe products. Those people selling lies to cover for the company’s wrongdoing are called “merchants of doubt”. They create a sense of doubt in the veracity of the scientific data and results collected by the scientist. This strategy of creating doubt and confusion causes delay in government regulation. The documentary shows

The Scientific Studies: Last Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) explains why the media report false information when it comes to science and how some studies by researchers are actually incomplete but are being reported as if they were complete. There are so many studies in science that they seem to contradict each other to an extent. John Oliver explains studies can be either misunderstood by the media as a result of the media just reading the press releases, leaving out important information about the research such as the sample size, or reporting on studies that may have not been completed yet. All studies are completed differently and if the public is not aware of this then they believe what the media are reporting. Oliver also mentions that

According to the American Evaluation Association (AEA) Public Statement on Cultural Competence in Evaluation, focusing on cultural sensitive enhance the quality of care. AEA mentioned that “Culturally significant factors encompass, but are not limited to, race/ethnicity, religion, spirituality, social class, caste, language, lineage, disability, sexual orientation, age, gender, geographic region, and socioeconomic circumstances” (American Evaluation Association (AEA), 2011); thus, concerning to difference in cultural is a significant aspect which all health care providers should put the first priorities. Therefore, focusing on cultural aspect strategy is the best fit with the essential practices for cultural competence acknowledged by the AEA.

Thesis statement: There should be meat free alternatives and more awareness of the benefits of choosing a vegetarian lifestyle as eating less meat is better for an individual’s health and the environmental.

I agree with your post about the competence which always involves having an open mind, and being respectful when dealing with different cultures. Learning, accept and respect other cultures is an important step for having new experiences and learning about the world. Each patient requires respect and acceptance as a human being. Another important factor is the communication, which is the corner stone of nurse patient relation. The purpose of the relationship is to help the patient, to promote healing, and to support functioning. Provide Cultural Competence Training for Employees is also important factor. Training also should be included as part of new-hire training and/or annual competency review. The main reason is the cultural competence

Throughout my research, a challenge I encountered was the fact that some of the articles I encountered seemed to included biases within them especially with the primary view of

If I was a history teacher and told you women were more dominant than men, would you believe me ? With news media false repressing scientific studies, John Oliver a British tries to exploit the dilemma on his talk show. John Oliver, a British comedian host of Last Week Tonight spoke about all the bazaar claims of scientific studies on one of his shows. Oliver introduces videos, scientific facts, break news etc. Oliver states that scientist sometimes reveals falsely represented criteria to speed up the studies process. He tells the audience that it is not just the scientist that spreads the false information but also the news media.

I understand the term “cultural competence” is the ability to naturally navigate through (social) environments taking into consideration people’s different cultural views and promote the views of others – not to the detriment of others.

For example, if it is believed that during the full moon occurs an increase in emergency room admissions, realize revenue during the full moon, but it will not pay attention to the moon when income occurs for other nights the rest of the months. A tendency to do so eventually unjustifiably strengthens their belief in the relationship between the full moon and accidents and other lunar effects. This tendency to pay more attention to data that support our beliefs that the data that counteract them is especially harmful when beliefs are nothing more than prejudice. If our beliefs are firmly established in evidence and valid experiments, the tendency to pay more attention and weight to data that conform to our beliefs not should take them, usually

Although the case study was discredited and the authors found guilty of ethical violations, it is very difficult to refute a published paper among the general public. Once the information is out there, correct or not, it is not easy to take it back. This publication has also done damage to the scientific community as a whole, with questions about funding and sponsorship being raised. Are we being given all of the facts and findings? Are studies being conducted in order to prove a hypothesis instead of challenge

The general allegation about dishonest presentations is uncomfortable, but these are often scientifically difficult judgements, and are being argued out.

For example, Vedula (2012) notes that FDA guidelines state pharmaceutical companies can use peer-reviewed articles to publicize evidence of a drug’s effectiveness for off-label uses, as long as a number of conditions are met—perhaps the most essential of which is that “the information disseminated must not be false or misleading.” However, Vedula continues, there is no unyielding regulation that all research findings have to be published. Therefore, a company can still choose to selectively disseminate favorable findings. His article concludes that there is now a copious amount of evidence that suggests selective reporting of study results, based on the strength and direction of findings, is performed extensively by the pharmaceutical industry.

Unmonitored bias, whatever the motivation, may perpetuate misinformation both in the academic sphere and in its subsequent dissemination to the public. According to a study published in Nature, 15.5 percent of the nearly 3,300 researchers surveyed admitted to “changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source,” which is a textbook example of COI (Martinson, 2005, p. 737). Within the same study, conflict of interest ranked second only to “inadequate record keeping related to research projects” in frequency, making it one of the most common forms of misconduct practiced by scientists (p. 737).

During discussion in class, we talked about what the chapter had to say about how information is gathered and bias. I found this part of the chapters interesting, because it was related in class in a way that I understood. Suddenly, I was thinking about times when I had looked at CNN or Fox News. They always talk about similar topics, but they always have different outcomes for the research. I began to wonder what other topics this could relate to, and I started to become more aware of data with disclaimers or data with endorsements. I was able to find out more about this topic. Upon looking at some graphs, I found a vast amount of research with endorsements had skewed graphs. The graphs were minimized or maximized to look a certain way. In

The deliberate or unintentional bias arising from a conflict contributes to research misconduct2, and failure to address these conflicts may damage the public’s attitude towards science2. Furthermore, non-disclosure of secondary interests adds to the distrust between the researcher and other scientists2. Consequently, the efficiency of research is reduced2: modern research requires scientific collaboration to develop materials, specimens and information2, and doubtful results must be cross-examined to be validated. Furthermore, if the researcher’s actions damage the relationship between scientists and funders, future research may stop, as institutions providing financial support may be reluctant to invest in the researcher2.