FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 329:725-727 September 2, 1993 Number 10 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text Purchase this article Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited PubMed Citation

In the 1992 Shattuck Lecture, Congressman John Dingell of Michigan woefully admits that "congressional hearings are rather blunt instruments, poorly suited to making fine distinctions of fact"¹. One would assume that Congressman Dingell would take advantage of the prestigious forum of the Shattuck Lecture and this scholarly journal to make the fine distinctions that he is unable to make in his hearing room as chairman of the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Unfortunately, this is not the case in his recently published Shattuck Lecture¹.

My purpose here is to make some important distinctions of fact, and also . . . [Full Text of this Article]

References

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Tobin, M. J. (2000). Reporting Research, Retraction of Results, and Responsibility. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 162: 773-774 [Full Text]