Related Experiment Videos
Moratorium on Maltzman: an appeal to reason
1Clinical Institute, Addiction Research Foundation, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract:
Maltzman's comment on Cook (1985), which appears elsewhere in this issue, is an unveiled attempt to resurrect the same allegations about our research that he made 7 years ago. None of the allegations are new! Over the past 7 years, those allegations have been the topic of 5 separate inquiries, in each of which we were vindicated. In this response, we review the multiple inquiries and we show how Maltzman continues to (1) cite our work out of context, (2) make false assumptions about the inquiries and our procedures and (3) disregard evidence contradicting his assertions. He relies on data that, to use his characterization, are a "tempest in a teapot." Having answered the same fundamental attack time and again over the past 7 years, we declare a unilateral moratorium on responding to Maltzman. Moreover, our repeated vindications, and research published over the last 20 years corroborating moderation outcomes, illustrate that, indeed, science is self-correcting.
Insights
This study addresses repeated, unsubstantiated allegations against research, highlighting five exonerations over seven years. It asserts that science is self-correcting, with 20 years of corroborating evidence supporting moderation outcomes.
Area of Science:
- Psychology
- Research Integrity
Background:
- This response addresses renewed allegations concerning research methodology and findings.
- The allegations mirror those previously made and investigated seven years prior.
Purpose of the Study:
- To refute persistent, unsubstantiated criticisms of research.
- To document the history of inquiries and vindications related to the research.
- To highlight the self-correcting nature of scientific progress.
Main Methods:
- Review of five separate inquiries conducted over the past seven years.
- Analysis of Maltzman's current commentary, identifying misinterpretations and out-of-context citations.
- Presentation of evidence supporting the original research findings and moderation outcomes.
Main Results:
- All five prior inquiries vindicated the research and its procedures.
- Maltzman's current commentary misrepresents the research, inquiries, and supporting evidence.
- Extensive research over 20 years corroborates the moderation outcomes.
Conclusions:
- The allegations are baseless and have been repeatedly disproven.
- Science possesses inherent self-correcting mechanisms.
- Further engagement with these specific criticisms is unwarranted given the history of vindication.