A scientific paradigm typically embraces research norms and values, such as truth-seeking, critical thinking, disinterestedness, and good scientific practice. These values should prevent a paradigm from introducing defective assumptions. But sometimes, scientists who are also physicians develop clinical norms that are in conflict with the scientific enterprise. As an example of such a conflict, we have analyzed the genesis and development of the shaken baby syndrome (SBS) paradigm. The point of departure of the analysis is a recently conducted systematic literature review, which concluded that there is very low scientific evidence for the basic assumption held by Child Protection Teams: when certain signs are present (and no other “acceptable” explanations are provided) the infant has been violently shaken. We suggest that such teams have developed more value-based than scientific-based criteria when classifying SBS cases. Further, we suggest that the teams are victims of “groupthink,” aggravating the difficulties in considering critics’ questioning the criteria established by the teams.
top of page
Recent Posts
See AllEgenreferat. Vi har tidigare rapporterat om 182 fall där misstänkt misshandel anmälts till socialtjänsten efter att subdural- och...
00
Gabriels sjukdom orsakade frakturen som läkaren misstänkte var misshandel: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/granskning/ug/gabriels-sjukdom-orsa...
00
Vad är Rakit och hur visar sig symptomen? https://www.jstor.org/stable/7260?seq=1
00
bottom of page
Comments