From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Mon Aug 18 2003 - 14:59:24 BST
Hi all
I found this discussion about "peer reviews" on the bbc.co.uk website. I
think it provides a good example of how social and intellectual patterns
are related and are in conflict:
"Most scientific research is "peer reviewed" with other experts
analysing the results before they are published in a scientific journal.
The process is supposed to ensure that any study's methodology is sound
and that interpretation of data does not go beyond what can be
reasonably justified.
Peer review is intended to be a "gold standard" that protects other
scientists and the public from shoddy research and fraudulent claims.
But the system does not satisfy everyone, and there is some concern that
a number of journals may be publishing research just to grab headlines
in the mainstream media.
"I worry it has gone to tabloid newspaper-like battles about silly
things rather than focussing on the deeper issues of the science and the
real benefits of what it all means," Professor Robin Lovell-Badge told
the BBC.
The stem cell researcher resigned from the editorial board of one online
journal after it published claims on human embryo clones that "had no
scientific value".
The Royal Society's vice president Sir Patrick Bateson, who will chair
the working group, added: "Peer review has been criticised for being too
secretive, conducted behind closed doors and assessed by anonymous
referees".
He said it had also been suggested the process had been used by the
establishment to "prevent unorthodox ideas, methods and views,
regardless of their merit, from being made public".
But Professor Bateson stressed that peer review was a good form of
insurance, and anyone who encountered a study - particularly journalists
- should always ask if the science had been checked by others.
"Stories that get into the media that haven't been properly reviewed can
do enormous damage," he said.
"The MMR triple vaccine was a particularly bad case where people were
terrified because they thought that vaccinating their children would
lead to autism, and the evidence for that was terrible."
Paul:
I find this statement particularly interesting:
"He said it had also been suggested the process had been used by the
establishment [social patterns] to "prevent unorthodox ideas, methods
and views [intellectual patterns], regardless of their merit
[intellectual quality], from being made public".
The full article is at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3140261.stm
Cheers
Paul
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 18 2003 - 15:01:03 BST