Not all experts are "bad"
I agree with Dr Sackett that experts may sometimes hinder the
progress of science and we need to discuss how their damage can be
minimised, but his view is too pessimistic.
Experts have aquired the highest level of current knowledge in their
field and they are probably the best to lead the way forward. We need
them. It is a waste of time not to listen to them.
The problem is to define and identify the "good" and the "bad"
Dogmatic and rigid experts that defend their own domain because of
fear of losing control and power should be identified by the scientific
community and put aside. How?
Competing interests: No competing interests