On ideals of objectivity, judgments, and bias in medical research - A comment on Stegenga

- Different notions of objectivity can affect discussions concerning medical research.
- Stegenga's (2011) article is based on the procedural ideal of objectivity.
- The procedural ideal is unattainable in practices.
- The procedural ideal is both insufficient and unnecessary in principle.

By using Stegenga's article Is meta-analysis the platinum standard of evidence as a case study, this paper shows how different notions of objectivity can affect discussions concerning medical research. I argue that the ideal of objectivity that underlies Stegenga's article is both unattainable in practice and insufficient and unnecessary in principle to capture some of the ways in which biases may enter medical knowledge production.