More than 30 years ago, the older of us published a paper with the proposal that all scientific papers should start with a statement along the lines of: "These are the opinions on which I base my facts". Why pretend? To take a topical example, if you are on the nature side of the nature/nurture debates, is it likely that your next paper will be an apologia: "I take it all back; genes don't matter at all; it is all environment"? Unlikely. Similarly, if you are on the other side. (We know. It's both.) Here, we are not in any way arguing for a relativist credo that would say opinions are all. Along with other readers of this journal, we spend a good part of our working lives gathering, analysing and interpreting empirical evidence. Evidence matters. But everyone has values and they do affect our positions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marmot et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: