To answer your point directly: for sure, I have a bias that the majority of scientists who work in cancer research generally mean well. But holding a positive view of (bias towards?) such people and their motives doesn't constitute not being willing to criticise science?
--
In this case, my frustration is that the author isn't intelligently criticising the science; I totally agree with you that science (and related issues, such as FDA approvals, or cost:benefit analyses of drugs) should of course always be open to exploration and criticism.
Instead, he's written an opinion piece masquerading as science, by using a variety of supportive quotes and excerpts to build a general case that cancer is big business, that there's a kind-of dark nefarious industry behind it all, and that people who work in this area are complicit in hurting patients with cancer. (It feels one step away from a conspiracy theory.) By confusing totally different topics (e.g. marketing of cancer drugs, vs. value of screening, vs. cost:benefit of cancer treatments, vs. side-effects of cancer drugs, etc.), by paying insufficient attention to any of them, and by employing such a broad brush, he turns a set of highly complex topics into a pointless oozing vat of negativity, possibly aligned with his workd-view.
--
In this case, my frustration is that the author isn't intelligently criticising the science; I totally agree with you that science (and related issues, such as FDA approvals, or cost:benefit analyses of drugs) should of course always be open to exploration and criticism.
Instead, he's written an opinion piece masquerading as science, by using a variety of supportive quotes and excerpts to build a general case that cancer is big business, that there's a kind-of dark nefarious industry behind it all, and that people who work in this area are complicit in hurting patients with cancer. (It feels one step away from a conspiracy theory.) By confusing totally different topics (e.g. marketing of cancer drugs, vs. value of screening, vs. cost:benefit of cancer treatments, vs. side-effects of cancer drugs, etc.), by paying insufficient attention to any of them, and by employing such a broad brush, he turns a set of highly complex topics into a pointless oozing vat of negativity, possibly aligned with his workd-view.