Comments on: Science and Political Affiliations http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3570 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Dylan Otto Krider http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3570&cpage=1#comment-1624 Dylan Otto Krider Fri, 26 Aug 2005 18:29:22 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3570#comment-1624 I would say that science is set up with the assumption that people are biased, and (unless Bush gets his way) to remove or at least put a check on those biases as much as possible. A think tank study that is not put up for peer review or for other scientists to repeat the experiments is automatically suspect. A bit of research published in a journal for other scientists to critique will find some scrutiny. Patrick Michaels certainly has biases, but being Cato's resident rent-a-skeptic doesn't mean he's not doing good science. As long as he's submitting his papers through the scientific process, that doesn't really matter. If his biases get the best of him, you can be sure those with different biases will submit a letter in reply. Contrast that with Dr. Brind who discovered a link between abortion and breast cancer after a meeting with a pro-life group. He submitted his research, it got published and summarily rejected. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is now that after he found the scientific community was against him, he moved to Phoenix to air commercials telling young women they will get breast cancer if they have an abortion. His need to drop out of the scientific process tells you all you need to know aobut the validity of his pet project. To paraphrase Asimov, I automatically assume a study is bogus if it appears in the NYT before a scientific journal. I would say that science is set up with the assumption that people are biased, and (unless Bush gets his way) to remove or at least put a check on those biases as much as possible. A think tank study that is not put up for peer review or for other scientists to repeat the experiments is automatically suspect. A bit of research published in a journal for other scientists to critique will find some scrutiny.

Patrick Michaels certainly has biases, but being Cato’s resident rent-a-skeptic doesn’t mean he’s not doing good science. As long as he’s submitting his papers through the scientific process, that doesn’t really matter. If his biases get the best of him, you can be sure those with different biases will submit a letter in reply.

Contrast that with Dr. Brind who discovered a link between abortion and breast cancer after a meeting with a pro-life group. He submitted his research, it got published and summarily rejected. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is now that after he found the scientific community was against him, he moved to Phoenix to air commercials telling young women they will get breast cancer if they have an abortion. His need to drop out of the scientific process tells you all you need to know aobut the validity of his pet project.

To paraphrase Asimov, I automatically assume a study is bogus if it appears in the NYT before a scientific journal.

]]> By: Marlowe Johnson http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3570&cpage=1#comment-1623 Marlowe Johnson Fri, 26 Aug 2005 18:15:30 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3570#comment-1623 Ideally, when a paper is peer-reviewed, it is judged based on its relative merits alone. Whether or not this actually occurs is a separate question. So, for example, if a study survives the peer review process and shows that the global warming potential of CFCs is offset by the destruction of ozone, then it shouldn't matter if the study was funded by Dupont or not. Personally, I don't think it's the researcher's responsibility to disclose any information about who has funded a study, or, for that matter, anything about their particular belief system. Instead, the onus lies with the individual or group that uses that study for advocy purposes to demonstrate bias, or lack thereof, depending on the spin that one wants to put on the issue at hand. Presumably this should be difficult to do-- assuming of course that the peer review process has been properly conducted. The other problem, of course, is that most people's views on controversial issues such as abortion, are often nuanced and don't fit into tidy either/or characterizations. So while it is relatively simple to determine financial conflict of interest, the same cannot be said of the relationship bewteen belief systems and scientific inquiry. Ideally, when a paper is peer-reviewed, it is judged based on its relative merits alone. Whether or not this actually occurs is a separate question. So, for example, if a study survives the peer review process and shows that the global warming potential of CFCs is offset by the destruction of ozone, then it shouldn’t matter if the study was funded by Dupont or not.

Personally, I don’t think it’s the researcher’s responsibility to disclose any information about who has funded a study, or, for that matter, anything about their particular belief system. Instead, the onus lies with the individual or group that uses that study for advocy purposes to demonstrate bias, or lack thereof, depending on the spin that one wants to put on the issue at hand. Presumably this should be difficult to do– assuming of course that the peer review process has been properly conducted.

The other problem, of course, is that most people’s views on controversial issues such as abortion, are often nuanced and don’t fit into tidy either/or characterizations. So while it is relatively simple to determine financial conflict of interest, the same cannot be said of the relationship bewteen belief systems and scientific inquiry.

]]>