![]() In 1984, when first debated, there was no scientific consensus on its reality or severity. The exception to the rule involves nuclear winter. ![]() The latter position, in our view, makes the mistake of conflating equality with identity, or rather, difference with inequality (cf. This paper provoked a fairly negative response even from scholars whose own work might be viewed as engaged with such questions, presumably because distinctions often imply inequities, and these latter scholars are loathe to re-inscribe the superiority of scientific expertise as a source of cultural authority (cf. “Wave Three” of science studies, they suggested, should re-establish the distinction between experts and lay persons, while acknowledging the continuity between the wider scientific community and the public in all but specialists’ areas. Our views thus overlap in some but not all respects with Collins and Evans ( 2002), who called for a new approach in science studies more directly engaged in evaluating expertise. The question is not, we believe, whether scientific expertise is intrinsically democratic or anti-democratic, but under what conditions scientific expertise best serves democratic governance. While we recognise the potential for scientific expertise to operate in undemocratic ways, our work clearly outlines an equally, if not more distressing, pattern in which attacks on scientific expertise can undermine democracy by undermining the basis for informed decision-making. ( 2001) and Lentsch and Weingart ( 2011). ![]() The potentially anti-democratic aspects of expertise has been raised especially by Jasanoff 1990, 20) cf. The issue of ghost-written papers, for example, has not, to my knowledge, come up in academic geology (although one might imagine a situation in which the CATO Institute would ghost-write an article on climate change) perhaps because of the absence of a regulatory framework creating large inducements. It is striking that most of the literature on problems in peer review addresses bio-medicine more work is needed to know whether the problems addressed by Smith, Healy, Rennie, and others are general to peer review or specific to the demands, pressures, regulatory framework and financial inducements of bio-medicine. Some have suggested the time has come to replace traditional peer review with open access web-based discussions on the internet Smith ( 2006) argues while this may not be any more reliable it would at least be more thought-provoking. The evidence that peer review may be deliberately undermined-and not just by Merchants of Doubt but in diverse ways-raises the question of whether this mechanism has out-lived its efficacy. ( 1981) attribute much of the variability in peer review outcomes to chance. On the other hand, the role of bias may itself be exaggerated because there is bias against ‘no effect’ results. 1998), perhaps because blinding is less effective than one would imagine because reviewers are able to identify authors through their knowledge of the field. Other studies, however, showed no benefit to blinding or unmasking in the peer review process (e.g. See: Peters and Ceci ( 1983) Fisher et al. While many studies do show some effect of gender bias, others suggest a stronger effect caused by prestige bias-grants and papers by authors who have published extensively before, or are affiliated with prestigious institutions, are more likely to receive positive reviews. ( 2007) or Abrevaya and Hamermesh ( 2010). ![]() On gender bias in peer review, see Wenneras and Wold ( 1997), Bornmann et al. On the problem of claims that do not hold up under further scrutiny, see: Jonah Lehrer, The truth wears off.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |