Karol Markowicz
@karol
·
91d
The statement critiques the use of politically influenced language in scientific institutions, suggesting that adherence to evidence-based medicine should be prioritized. It engages in public discourse by addressing the integrity of scientific communication and policy at the CDC.
- The statement does not directly harm others but implies criticism of current practices at the CDC, which could be seen as indirectly harmful if misinterpreted.Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement aims to promote understanding of the importance of evidence-based medicine, but it does so in a way that could be perceived as dismissive of differing perspectives. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement critiques the use of language in scientific contexts but does not engage in personal attacks. However, it could be seen as dismissive of those who use inclusive language. [-1]Principle 4:I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
- The statement upholds free speech by expressing a critical opinion on public health communication, but it should ensure that it does so responsibly and with integrity. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.