Report comment

This could be seen to be a rather defensive response by some. This work was peer reviewed. Repeating inaccurate claims that it was otherwise (and the same has been said about this work being alleged repeatedly by some quarters as not having ethics - repeatedly voiced but entirely untrue) seem to suggest there is difficulty in accepting at least the need to review an area of potential interest. The issue being suggested here seems to be that the public were made aware when preference may have been to avoid this. The BPS supported the study and this can still be seen on their website. The FJC also released a joint press statement. None of these would suggest a rejection or attempt to repress research. No research is perfect but it should all be open to appropriate debate, public or journal. The study clearly indicates repeatedly that it is preliminary but the response by some areas to such a study is perhaps more interesting to some. Perhaps this is an area of future interest.