The defence of legitimate exercise physiology research from real and perceived bias: a rebuttal

Dear Editor, A recent publication entitled ‘Is this the new smoking? An expert panel review of the York University OHV health benefits study’ published in Health Promotion International (Bissix et al., 2012) claimed to systematically appraise the scientific methodology upon which a series of health-related investigations into off-highway vehicle (OHV) participation were based. The authors concluded that the science regarding the health impacts of OHV riding is ‘indefensible’ based on conceptual, methodological and interpretive limitations. Beginning with the title and prevalent throughout the article, there is a pervasive suggestion that our study had a research bias. To suggest that we have such a deficiency of integrity is the greatest possible insult to a serious scholar, and it is audacious of Bissix et al. to draw comparisons between the OHV health and chronic disease risk investigation and the travesties in some past smoking research. This is an accusation to which we (the authors of this original research) take great offense in no uncertain terms. Furthermore, we suggest that the article by Bissix et al. claiming to scientifically re-assess our work is an embarrassment to serious researchers, full of poor or irrelevant arguments, misrepresentations of fact, references taken out of context and ludicrous attribution of media reports to our research team. To be clear, we fully support the scientific process of collecting data with a transparent sharing of the methodology and results, allowing work to be re-tested, confirmed or refuted. It is through this scientific method that knowledge is gained and progress is made. However, Bissix et al. have little to contribute to this process owing to their lack of expertise in this area, which is painfully apparent from the uninformed arguments in their article and their absence of published research in our field. As such, this ‘scientific paper’ they have submitted is nothing more than a biased commentary. The egregious errors and omissions in their ‘reinterpretation of our data’ can only be attributed to either (i) a purposeful attempt to mislead or (2) outright ignorance of basic principles of exercise physiology. Extending the authors the benefit of doubt concerning their professional integrity, we will assume that the errors in their article stem primarily from the latter. In this paper, we critically examine and respond to the objections that Bissix et al. have raised in regard to our work. First, to infer that our research was in any way biased by our funding is patently incorrect and an unfounded defamatory accusation. We have formally acknowledged all funding arrangements in every presentation of our data, and made it very clear that our funding partners had no involvement at any stage of the research or manuscript preparation. Our funder’s arms-length relationship to our research was no different from that which exists between any funding agency (be it cancer, heart disease etc.) Health Promotion International, Vol. 28 No. 1 doi:10.1093/heapro/das069 # The Author (2013). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.