Nigel, Kai...

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It's just yet another reason not to trust pre-publication peer review to be more than a filter.

Can't trust the post-publication shit, either, because IT is more than likely just as corrupt.

This is actually probably the best argument against post-pub PR, because at that stage it's so relatively easy for profit-motivated sources with huge financial resources to push to discredit valid research.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I don't have fucking time or the expertise to verify all the claims made that will have an impact on my life, so there has to be - at some point - a point where I can "take things on faith", with the idea that someone, somewhere, is fact-checking or testing results and methodology.

Well, that isn't fucking happening, and looking at the news, etc, concerning this shit, NOBODY'S PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN SEEING THAT IT DOES.

I may as well go buy a fucking magic 8 ball.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It's getting dangerously close to the point where I will simply start giggling like a ninny, and never be able to stop.

I want to eat someone's face.  Raw.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It's just yet another reason not to trust pre-publication peer review to be more than a filter.

Can't trust the post-publication shit, either, because IT is more than likely just as corrupt.

This is actually probably the best argument against post-pub PR, because at that stage it's so relatively easy for profit-motivated sources with huge financial resources to push to discredit valid research.

I think you need both pre & post.  The more the merrier.

But now the "pr" stands for "public relations".

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I also want to say that there may actually be substantial problems with the study. The article said that the rats were "fed both" Roundup-Ready corn, and Roundup. I would expect animals that are fed pesticide to have health problems. But, since I haven't looked at the study itself, I can't really pass judgement; they could be talking about the kind of trace amounts you would expect to find in commercially-grown grain.

Either way, the best way to correct methodological error is not to shut down additional research, but to encourage it.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
- Adam Smith

Never thought I'd apply that to the sciences on any scale.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Either way, the best way to correct methodological error is not to shut down additional research, but to encourage it.

Unless you're Hugh Grant (the CEO, not the actor, obviously), or someone else who for whatever reason has an interest in shutting down discussion.  Like maybe someone picked one side of an argument that is largely irrelevant, and now that person CAN'T LOOK because their filters WON'T LET THEM.

[Kai]

It's just yet another reason not to trust pre-publication peer review to be more than a filter.

Can't trust the post-publication shit, either, because IT is more than likely just as corrupt.

I generally trust myself to read critically.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It's just yet another reason not to trust pre-publication peer review to be more than a filter.

Can't trust the post-publication shit, either, because IT is more than likely just as corrupt.

I generally trust myself to read critically.

Must be nice to have the training to do so.

Because, you know, you start talking even simple shit like mitosis, and most of us are left in the dark, because we haven't had time to even look at that shit since high school.  Which is why I trusted scientists to do their jobs; I had no choice.

But now it turns out that the scientific community has become a pack of carnival hucksters.  Not all, of course, but I CAN'T TELL WHICH ONES ARE WHICH, so I have to assume that the whole pack is filthy.

[Demolition Squid]

Yeah.

This kind of stuff is not going to help the general public trust science. Just look at the anti-immunization lobby.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It's a bad situation, for sure.

[Kai]

Kai and I have had some conflict over the topic of GMO, which I think is what he's referring to. I was going to say pretty much what Kai said. They are protecting their money. GMO isn't inherently bad, but in plants introducing genes that express properties that have not previously existed as such can have long-range unforeseen consequences on various other organisms that feed directly or indirectly on GMO material, and Monsanto would like to suppress research that points to any such consequences because it hits their bottom line. They are so heavily invested in GMO at this point that any studies that point to serious health or ecological consequences from products like Roundup Ready or BT corn would be financially disastrous for them if they were taken seriously.

I agree with this.

So far, of three trained scientists on this board, ONE has expressed dismay at this, either in this thread or in the one concerning the deliberately faked publication.

It's a problem, yes. But it's a long standing problem. Just because Monsanto is in the game now doesn't mean they were the first. I'm not about to be alarmist about this, as if peer review has /ever/ been an impartial process. Maybe it's because I'm not a layperson, I don't depend on media to tell me what a paper means, that I am not getting the gravity of this situation and everyone else is. Publishers are money making outlets. This is no different for publishers of scientific journals. You can't trust /ANYTHING/ that comes out of scientific publishing on their apparent reputation or on word of the media. How is this any different than anything other written work?

I also want to say that there may actually be substantial problems with the study. The article said that the rats were "fed both" Roundup-Ready corn, and Roundup. I would expect animals that are fed pesticide to have health problems. But, since I haven't looked at the study itself, I can't really pass judgement; they could be talking about the kind of trace amounts you would expect to find in commercially-grown grain.

Either way, the best way to correct methodological error is not to shut down additional research, but to encourage it.

Exactly.

I don't have fucking time or the expertise to verify all the claims made that will have an impact on my life, so there has to be - at some point - a point where I can "take things on faith", with the idea that someone, somewhere, is fact-checking or testing results and methodology.

Well, that isn't fucking happening, and looking at the news, etc, concerning this shit, NOBODY'S PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN SEEING THAT IT DOES.

I may as well go buy a fucking magic 8 ball.

They are. We do. They're just imperfect, and do not come down to you as titanium hewn. Generally, peer review works, but it is an iterative process, and it often takes a long time for consensus to happen. Forgive me for not running around screaming with my arms flailing in the air because Science is composed of people. And a great many people ARE interested. They just aren't part of the hype, and are therefore ignored. How about the Journal of Negative Results? How about the researchers who followed up on and repeated the methods of the arsenic eating bacteria paper?

[Don Coyote]

It's just yet another reason not to trust pre-publication peer review to be more than a filter.

Can't trust the post-publication shit, either, because IT is more than likely just as corrupt.

I generally trust myself to read critically.

Must be nice to have the training to do so.

Because, you know, you start talking even simple shit like mitosis, and most of us are left in the dark, because we haven't had time to even look at that shit since high school.  Which is why I trusted scientists to do their jobs; I had no choice.

But now it turns out that the scientific community has become a pack of carnival hucksters.  Not all, of course, but I CAN'T TELL WHICH ONES ARE WHICH, so I have to assume that the whole pack is filthy.

That's kind of how I feel about this.

And it is rather condescending to imply that we aren't able to critically evaluate scientific literature, as in many ways scientific facts will run absolutely contrary to "common sense" and previously understood facts. This is in addition to the reality that many of us do not have the time to critically evaluate new scientific publications even if we have access to the journals in which they are published.

Yeah.

This kind of stuff is not going to help the general public trust science. Just look at the anti-immunization lobby.

I had this rather scary thought when the whole "i submitted a bunch of bogus papers" thing hit, and that is a deliberate attempt by one or more parties to influence the non-scientific public to distrust science and scientists.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Bad science reporting is a whole other problem, one I've written about before. What gets conveyed to the public even from perfectly good research papers is often, if not usually, a gross distortion of the actual findings. That's also really disturbing to me.

I also think that corporations need to be defanged when it comes to their influence/interference in the scientific process and publication.

[Kai]

It's just yet another reason not to trust pre-publication peer review to be more than a filter.

Can't trust the post-publication shit, either, because IT is more than likely just as corrupt.

I generally trust myself to read critically.

Must be nice to have the training to do so.

Because, you know, you start talking even simple shit like mitosis, and most of us are left in the dark, because we haven't had time to even look at that shit since high school.  Which is why I trusted scientists to do their jobs; I had no choice.

But now it turns out that the scientific community has become a pack of carnival hucksters.  Not all, of course, but I CAN'T TELL WHICH ONES ARE WHICH, so I have to assume that the whole pack is filthy.

SCIENCE IS MADE OF PEOPLE. Is that really such a difficult revelation? Do you think it's different for any profession? Why did you have this impression that Science was omitted?