Daily Archive for August 3rd, 2007

In case you missed it (I did), the Dore program was embroiled in a bit more controvery in the winter of 2007, enough to merit an editorial in Nature Neuorscience. The editorial recounts the resignation of members of the professional editorial board of Dyslexia over publication of two studies of the Dore treatment, points out problems of potential conflict of interest, describes the theory and practice of the Dore program, reports the two studies that form the base for the controversy, and recounts selected aspects of the scholaraly criticisms of the studies. The spoon that stirs the controversy, however, is that non-scientific factors are interferring with orderly analysis. According to Nature Neuorscience, at least two people who have said that the scientific evidence for the program’s effectiveness is weak have been subjected to legal pressure to withdraw their criticisms.

Nature Neuorscience goes on to indicate that questions about the usefulness of any treatment should be determined in an orderly scientific manner, not as a consequence of political or other unfalsifiable methods. If decisions are based on commerical or legal interests, consumers will not be able to depend on researchers for honest opinions.

Nature Neuroscience, by the way, is a relatively new journal (it’s only 10 years old) that rose rapidly to the top echelon of scholarly publications in neurosciences. It routinely ranks in the top five among its peers for its “impact factor,” a measure reflecting the relative frequency articles published in a particular journal are cited by in other publications.

Link to the editorial (access probably costs unless you’re hitting it from a university that has rights to it). Links to previous posts on LD Blog are here and here. Also see the many entries Liz Ditz has on this subject.