All Activity

I am an editor by trade -- or at least by one of them. For many years, I edited peer reviewed medical journals in a variety of fields. It was part of my job, with the help of medical review boards composed of national and international experts in their fields, to assess the validity of research in articles, or the citations used to support a recommended standard of care. With sometimes millions or even billions of dollars at stake, major pharmaceutical companies often employ strategies similar to what BSA did to produce or highlight favorable research or recommendations. These strategies are obvious to anyone working in the field.  There is a gray area where reputable researchers, reviewers, and publications often operate as part of the medical publishing system and each person, publication and review board, and sometimes the medical board organization it might represent, has to assess for itself what is acceptable. In this case, though, maybe the best way to describe what happened to BSA and its paid consultant is to say that they veered out of grey areas and stepped directly into fudge. I think it's relevant that BSA doesn't seem to mention this episode itself much post 2019. I believe some future transparency and data reporting is eventually supposed to result as part of the bankruptcy settlement with survivors, and that probably will be the first useful information to emerge from BSA if it ever does see light of day. 

We have enough backpacks and tents in circulation from alumni scouts, that we now encourage first-years to borrow from our “gear library” until they figure out exactly what they want. I think that is a metaphor for what remains BSA’s strength. Here are a series of parts, practices, and techniques that can be passed from generation to generation.

Without doubt. For all the rest, one word: "Tufte."

I misstated my practices.  If any vehicle fell behind for some reason, I slowed down until all caught up. Convoying as we practiced it was slower than a single vehicle driving at legal limits.  Slowing for others to catch up, however, caused me some concern, as I am not comfortable driving below the speed of other traffic. More-a lot more. For over 24 years, I've attended every troop meeting (less 3 or 4), every campout, troop activity, and summer camp (less 3 or 4), attended Roundtables, held District and Council level positions, been Chair of cub summer camps, cub weekend campouts,  and been heavily involved in monthly work days at the local camp, NCAP team member (and I read the entire binder of rules), Wood Badge, etc. AND UNTIL MY FIRST POST on this topic, I NEVER HEARD of a prohibition on convoying to scouting events. So, the first senior attorney partner I worked for, when some legal matter got into a "sticky wicket" would look at me and ask, "How did we get into this BOX?" Truly, yes. Why? And I ask that question on convoying. "Why have I, so heavily involved in Scouting, not only with my kids working through the program, but also being a unit leader for Cubs and Scouts, District Chairperson and chair of other District camping events, Council Board Member, NCAP team member, member of Council subcommittees with a number of currently serving scoutmasters, and having spent dozens of lunches with the scoutmaster members of the camp work crew…having taken all the training National suggests/requires me to take…WHY have I not heard of the prohibition on convoying?" So, I will canvass our troop leaders and ask if they have ever heard of such a prohibition and advise them that they are not to caravan. Additionally, that they should make sure that each vehicle has a list of cell phone numbers of all the other vehicles headed to the event, so that if a problem arises they can stay in contact and get help. Additionally, I think it prudent that all vehicles follow the same route.  So, if a vehicle breaks down, it is somewhere ahead, or behind, and easy to get to.  That a vehicle might be 20 miles off the route taken by other vehicles creates chaos.

@AwakeEnergyScouter, I’m a statistician by trade — primarily in psychology and cardiology. My employers and clients pay me for my independent evaluation. That does not mean they have me in their back pockets. The opposite holds. I retain (and have exercised) the right to withdraw my name from any document that misrepresents facts. But by-and-large, authors  — even industry clients — defer to me on matters of presentation and interpretation. Reputation is the only capital worth acquiring. The same applies to time volunteered reviewing manuscripts for journals. The questions you and @yknot raise regarding a lack of financial disclosure,  restricted data access, and/or statements that don’t apply in a larger context could speak to bias in Warren and Reed’s peer-reviewed article.  If how I’ve seen friends compensated is any indication, Warren probably was well paid as an expert witness, but she also did so under risk of perjury. Given the lack of financial acknowledgment, it’s more likely that BSA did not pay her to continue the long road to publishing in an academic journal. Furthermore, .Mackinem and Laufersweiler-Dwyer explicitly state that they had no conflicts of interest to disclose. This would generally be understood that BSA gave access without restriction. Regarding data sharing in general, investigators tend to be quite cagey. They will often not share (or in this case, release license to) data until their initial results are published. That seems to have happened here. Although technically possible for BSA to self-publish more quickly, the legal liability in doing so would be great. And, I would trust them less. (Unless, of course, they hired me for the analysis. ) That’s not to say that the academic work presented so far is perfect. But, it’s not nothing.