|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
 Posted - 03/08/2009 : 05:22:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Zebra
Note the rolling eyes. I, too, think it would be a horrible method.
Another route by which the public influences research direction is by supporting foundations.
I have to grit my teeth every time I hear "Fund the Cure!" (running theme of the Susan G. Komen foundation, which per their website is "the largest source of nonprofit funds dedicated to the fight against breast cancer in the world" - $1 billion in the past 27 yrs).
Every October, one of the nearby grocery stores asks people (every time you go in) to donate $1 "to fund the cure." I've told them I'll donate when they stop selling cigarettes, but they just look at me funny & haven't taken me up on the offer yet.
"Fund the Cure" a catchy phrase, & taps into public fear about breast cancer (which is, of course, a common and sometimes fatal condition), but IMO it also implies (a) that breast cancer is one disease (it's not) and (b) that The Cure is right around the corner (it's not).
Researchers sitting on a grant review panel have a much better understanding of the big picture, and also the details.
|
It's a common problem with charities. In the Netherlands, some while ago cancer passed heart diseases as the number one deadliest disease in the Netherlands. This should have been good news. Our prevention efforts have succeeded in decreasing both heart diseases and the fatalities from heart diseases.
The heart foundation in the Netherlands thought otherwise. They had a crisis meeting on how to continue, given that their main argument to gain support (number one deadliest disease!!!!) was no longer applicable.
On the other hand, gaining donations seems to be a bit more level-headed in the Netherlands. We get the sick and dying babies, sure, but I haven't spotted "fund the cure" slogans that are grossly inaccurate (yet). |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
 |
|
|
JustMe
Skeptic Friend
64 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2009 : 11:00:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Anyone who understands that peer review is performed by human beings should consider "subjective judgements" to be endemic within the process, and not merely something suggested by "anecdotal evidence." Open access or not. This is not a difficult fact around which one might wrap one's head.
The problem only occurs when someone suggests that peer review is some sort of guarantee of accuracy. And, believe it or not, the people most often doing so are the anti-science cranks who point out some failure of peer review and go on to claim that such a failure proves that their non-peer-reviewed work should be given much more consideration than it is due. By analogy, what the nutbars are saying is, "despite a century of experience and safety improvements in the automobile, people still die in them, so you should buy our $3,000 bicycle instead." It's a transparently bad argument.
As soon as human nature is removed from the process of doing science, we will attain perfect science. Until then, the fact that problems exist shouldn't be a matter of discussion. What should matter is how serious the problems are and how often they occur.
In short, "there are problems in peer review" is not new or interesting. But "this process reduces problems in peer review" would be.
|
My reference to "anecdotal evidence" was meant to address just the question you posed: "How serious are the problems and how often do they occur?" Far from being neither new nor interesting, the fact that "there are problems in peer review" reinvents itself in some novel way every time new and potentially impactful knowledge gets waylaid by the process. And the anectotal evidence suggests that the answer to how often that happens may be "too often".
Anti-science cranks engaging in crankdom got nothin' anyways, and outside of acknowledging your point and the issue it raises I'm not that concerned about them in the context of this conversation. If problems emerge when peer review is improperly linked with a guarantee of accuracy, they also emerge when peer review as it is currently implemented is seen as a nearly exclusive indicator of the worthiness and significance of ideas and work. Last year when we were discussing Thane Heins you said this about peer review:
The difference between them and Heins is that I probably won't hear about the vast majority of the scientists - ever. I'll likely hear some of their names in announcements of the Nobel winners years from now, but I'll just as likely forget them right afterwards. These are people who'll rarely make it into the newspapers, because even though they're often working on entirely new science, it's mostly not science that even hints at overturning already-existing science.
These people aren't looking for investors, they're writing tedious grant proposals, hoping they'll get enough to keep their projects going. They're not posting videos on YouTube and asking anonymous people on the Internet to validate their findings, because they simply don't have the time to do so.
They generally toil in silence, unrecognized for their efforts, until they complete a project and manage to get through the peer-review process to publication, where they will disclose their methods, data and analysis to the world at large, and hope that nobody finds a mistake.
These are the people actually discover new things on a regular basis. |
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9484&whichpage=8#142014 |
| Edited by - JustMe on 03/08/2009 13:32:16 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2009 : 15:35:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JustMe
Far from being neither new nor interesting, the fact that "there are problems in peer review" reinvents itself in some novel way every time new and potentially impactful knowledge gets waylaid by the process. And the anectotal evidence suggests that the answer to how often that happens may be "too often". |
The fact that both funding and publishing space are limited, the process necessarily waylays "new and potentially impactful knowledge" every single day. Even if the entire world's GDP and every ounce of ink were devoted to scientific endeavors, something would be left out of every journal, and some grants would be passed over. Our resources aren't infinite, and our judgement isn't perfect, and neither of those things are new or interesting.| ...they also emerge when peer review as it is currently implemented is seen as a nearly exclusive indicator of the worthiness and significance of ideas and work. |
As has been already said in this thread, despite the problems with peer review, it is the best indicator that we've got. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The ‘Black Box’ of Peer Review
