Comments on: Dore some more http://LDBlog.com/2007/08/03/dore-more/ News, commentary, and resources about Learning Disabilities Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:24:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Podblack Cat at Teach Effectively! http://LDBlog.com/2007/08/03/dore-more/#comment-45213 Podblack Cat at Teach Effectively! Sun, 08 Jun 2008 05:52:38 +0000 http://LDBlog.com/2007/08/03/dore-more/#comment-45213 [...] for alerting me to this source. For earlier posts about DORE, see here (2006 Teach Effectively), here (2007 LD Blog), here (2007 LD Blog), here (2006 LD Blog), and here (2005 LD Blog). But, don’t stop there; [...] [...] for alerting me to this source. For earlier posts about DORE, see here (2006 Teach Effectively), here (2007 LD Blog), here (2007 LD Blog), here (2006 LD Blog), and here (2005 LD Blog). But, don’t stop there; [...]

]]> By: Chris Tregenza http://LDBlog.com/2007/08/03/dore-more/#comment-37001 Chris Tregenza Sun, 12 Aug 2007 11:03:06 +0000 http://LDBlog.com/2007/08/03/dore-more/#comment-37001 A copy of the Editorial is available for free here: http://npg.nature.com/neuro/journal/v10/n2/full/nn0207-135.html This controversy focuses on two key issues: - Are Dore's studies valid science? - Was the resignation of the five scientists from Dyslexia's board a genuine act of selfless protest or was it a stunt by a group with their own agenda? On the first point, all articles in Dyslexia are independently peer-reviewed, the gold standard in scientific research. Clearly the peer reviewers in this case felt that the paper was worthy of publication and their decision should be respected. Why did the five scientist resign? Was it protest or stunt? Its worth noting that the five who resigned where out of a panel of about 20 highly respected scientists. If Dore's paper was so bad, why didn't the entire board resign? Or could it be that the five had their own agenda? (See here for the current editorial board: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jabout/6124/EditorialBoard.html ) The five who resigned claim that it was over the conflict of interest in the report, e.g. that the lead researcher had been paid by Dore. Such a conflict of interest is not good in a study but there are a few fact worth considering. - No one else is studying Dore's treatment. How can a commercial company generate scientific data without paying (directly or indirectly) the researchers? I'm sure Wynford Dore would be delighted to have a truely independent study done. - Prof Snowling who was the ringleader amongst the five who resigned is a longtime critic of Dore and has appeared in several national newspapers criticising Dore for its commercial nature and lack of science. - Prof Snowling is involved with Dyslexia Action, a psuedo-commercial organisation that generate £8 million a year selling after schools help to dyslexics. It is a direct competitor to Dore and has never published any research on its effectiveness in the 23 years of the organisation's existence. Get the real story on Dyslexia Action here: http://www.myomancy.com/2007/02/who_are_dyslexi There are many good scientific reasons for criticising Dore's research and more independent research needs to be done but this is how science makes progress. However Prof Snowling and her cronies are not interest in science. They prefer to spend there time performing attention seeking stunts in an attempt to discredit Dore. For more on Dore: http://www.myomancy.com/category/dore-achievement-centres/ A copy of the Editorial is available for free here: http://npg.nature.com/neuro/journal/v10/n2/full/nn0207-135.html

This controversy focuses on two key issues:

- Are Dore’s studies valid science?

- Was the resignation of the five scientists from Dyslexia’s board a genuine act of selfless protest or was it a stunt by a group with their own agenda?

On the first point, all articles in Dyslexia are independently peer-reviewed, the gold standard in scientific research. Clearly the peer reviewers in this case felt that the paper was worthy of publication and their decision should be respected.

Why did the five scientist resign? Was it protest or stunt? Its worth noting that the five who resigned where out of a panel of about 20 highly respected scientists. If Dore’s paper was so bad, why didn’t the entire board resign? Or could it be that the five had their own agenda? (See here for the current editorial board: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jabout/6124/EditorialBoard.html )

The five who resigned claim that it was over the conflict of interest in the report, e.g. that the lead researcher had been paid by Dore. Such a conflict of interest is not good in a study but there are a few fact worth considering.

- No one else is studying Dore’s treatment. How can a commercial company generate scientific data without paying (directly or indirectly) the researchers? I’m sure Wynford Dore would be delighted to have a truely independent study done.

- Prof Snowling who was the ringleader amongst the five who resigned is a longtime critic of Dore and has appeared in several national newspapers criticising Dore for its commercial nature and lack of science.

- Prof Snowling is involved with Dyslexia Action, a psuedo-commercial organisation that generate £8 million a year selling after schools help to dyslexics. It is a direct competitor to Dore and has never published any research on its effectiveness in the 23 years of the organisation’s existence. Get the real story on Dyslexia Action here: http://www.myomancy.com/2007/02/who_are_dyslexi

There are many good scientific reasons for criticising Dore’s research and more independent research needs to be done but this is how science makes progress. However Prof Snowling and her cronies are not interest in science. They prefer to spend there time performing attention seeking stunts in an attempt to discredit Dore.

For more on Dore: http://www.myomancy.com/category/dore-achievement-centres/

]]>