The editorial by Faulkner & Thomas (Reference Thornley and Adams2002) raises serious issues, as did another recent paper (Reference Choudhry, Stelfox and DetskyBracken & Thomas, 2001: see Reference Angellvan Beinum, 2001). They present a false dichotomy between (morally good) ‘users’ and (morally irresponsible) researchers, from which flows an unwarranted assumption that somehow psychiatric research rarely has the interests of patients at heart. Their editorial, with its unsubstantiated statements, poor definitions, political banner-waving and lack of understanding of both science and the research process, is the antithesis of considered and evidence-based argument.

There is, however, no doubt that patients and their families should have a substantial voice in helping to set the questions that research attempts to answer, and in establishing mechanisms for ensuring the importance of this process. This does not mean, however, that being a ‘user’ somehow qualifies a person as a top-notch research scientist. Thus, for example, the user-led research quoted by the authors (Reference Stelfox, Chua and O'RourkeFaulkner, 2000) was deeply flawed, in that it did not address the issue of researcher bias and some of the conclusions bore no relation to the evidence presented. User groups have their own political agendas and are not representative of the body of patients as a whole.

There is a difference between asking socially relevant questions and conducting sound research. Good research is difficult to do and is best done by teams of well-trained research scientists. Arguing, as Faulkner and Thomas do, that psychiatrists and funding bodies should give equal weight to research conducted by groups of users and by professional researchers is a travesty. We do patients (and ourselves, for many of us have been, or will become, users) no favours by confounding good research with political correctness, for there is nothing more unethical or wasteful than poor research on vulnerable patients.