http://www.independentsciencenews.org/science-media/the-goodman-affair-monsanto-targets-the-heart-of-science/
Ever wonder what the fuck these geeks are hiding?
I mean, if they are making a deliberate attempt to short-circuit the peer review process, they probably aren't doing it as a hobby.
I've always sort of laughed at the GMO food thing, but this is whacked.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 17, 2013, 01:23:22 AM
http://www.independentsciencenews.org/science-media/the-goodman-affair-monsanto-targets-the-heart-of-science/
Ever wonder what the fuck these geeks are hiding?
I mean, if they are making a deliberate attempt to short-circuit the peer review process, they probably aren't doing it as a hobby.
I've always sort of laughed at the GMO food thing, but this is whacked.
Not anything spectacular. They have money, and are protecting their profits by using it to reduce negative press, whether in the form of journal articles or news media. People like to see some big conspiracy behind it, but really it's an insanely powerful, amoral company. Think of how energy companies operate. Monsanto has moved into that category. I'm not personally concerned over the health effects, if that's what you're asking.
It's just yet another reason not to trust pre-publication peer review to be more than a filter.
Edit: But I'm not really interested in starting an argument over it.
Quote from: Kai on October 17, 2013, 12:34:45 PM
Edit: But I'm not really interested in starting an argument over it.
Um.
I asked the two of you because you're the two people I know who currently have the most to do with peer review. Not because I wanted to get in an argument with either one of you.
Never mind.
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.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 17, 2013, 04:49:04 PM
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.
To me, it seems like a rather rapid erosion of the scientific community, which I find far more disturbing than a strain or two of GMO crops. Also, it makes me very curious...Why would anyone go through all that effort to protect their investment, if there wasn't something wrong with that investment.
With power comes the absolute certainty of turning into a pigfucker. And a company vetting its own science is about as good as Goldman Sachs vetting its own bond ratings a few years ago.
It's not one company making a shifty call. It's the dissolution of the scientific method by the creation of a machine
designed for fraud.
So, now I can't believe ANYTHING. Scientist makes a claim, the first question is "Who paid you to find the results they wanted you to find?", because the method by which other scientists check and/or reproduce the results may still be intact, but the means by which this is communicated to me is hopelessly compromised.
The second question isn't "who is this scientist working for", but "To which companies have they applied for employment"?
The third question is, "Who benefits?"
You will notice that at no point am I asking "Who has reproduced the experiment", because I have to automatically assume that THAT was bullshit, too.
Quote from: Kai on October 17, 2013, 12:34:45 PM
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.
Hello, there. I'm Doctor Andrew Wakefield, and I'd like to thank the international scientific community for not being too upset about this little development.
\
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47913000/jpg/_47913344_wakefield_512.jpg)
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.
TRUST THIS MAN.
(http://cdn.journalism.cuny.edu/blogs.dir/148/files/2009/09/hughgrant.jpg)
IT'S NOT LIKE YOU HAVE A CHOICE.
...
Quote from: Claire Robinson and Jonathan LathamFast forward to September 2012, when the scientific journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) published a study that caused an international storm (Séralini, et al. 2012). The study, led by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini of the University of Caen, France, suggested a Monsanto genetically modified (GM) maize, and the Roundup herbicide it is grown with, pose serious health risks. The two-year feeding study found that rats fed both suffered severe organ damage and increased rates of tumors and premature death. Both the herbicide (Roundup) and the GM maize are Monsanto products.
I'm not a scientist and I get that rats do not equal humans...
... But it is the sort of thing which would make me want to see more studies on potential health risks to humans, and the fact they are moving to just shut that down is genuinely worrying to me.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 17, 2013, 05:53:22 PM
...
Quote from: Claire Robinson and Jonathan LathamFast forward to September 2012, when the scientific journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) published a study that caused an international storm (Séralini, et al. 2012). The study, led by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini of the University of Caen, France, suggested a Monsanto genetically modified (GM) maize, and the Roundup herbicide it is grown with, pose serious health risks. The two-year feeding study found that rats fed both suffered severe organ damage and increased rates of tumors and premature death. Both the herbicide (Roundup) and the GM maize are Monsanto products.
I'm not a scientist and I get that rats do not equal humans...
... But it is the sort of thing which would make me want to see more studies on potential health risks to humans, and the fact they are moving to just shut that down is genuinely worrying to me.
It's not even that. I KNOW that corporations pull shifty shit.
It's that almost nobody seems to GIVE A FUCK. Nigel spoke up, in the other thread. Everyone else either said it wasn't important or even that it's ACCEPTABLE, because GOD FORBID WE HAVE AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITY THAT ACTUALLY IS AN AUTHORITY.
Now we have an appeal to authority that is founded on bullshit and fucking apathy.
WELL DONE, SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY! Now, what have you told us recently that you wanted us to believe?
Of course rats don't equal humans, and also of course a diet consisting entirely of maize doesn't reflect actual human consumption. Studies like this merely point in the direction of further research that needs to be done, and companies moving to make sure that research doesn't happen is really very bad. Corporations shutting down science research because they're afraid it will compromise their bottom line is flat-out corruption.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 17, 2013, 06:03:41 PM
and companies moving to make sure that research doesn't happen is really very bad.
THIS.
QuoteCorporations shutting down science research because they're afraid it will compromise their bottom line is flat-out corruption.
AND THAT.
It's getting dangerously close to the point where I will simply start giggling like a ninny, and never be able to stop.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 17, 2013, 05:31:09 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 17, 2013, 12:34:45 PM
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 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.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 17, 2013, 06:05:37 PM
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.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 17, 2013, 06:06:04 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 17, 2013, 05:31:09 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 17, 2013, 12:34:45 PM
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".
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.
"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.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 17, 2013, 06:12:38 PM
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.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 17, 2013, 05:31:09 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 17, 2013, 12:34:45 PM
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.
Quote from: Kai on October 17, 2013, 06:47:49 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 17, 2013, 05:31:09 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 17, 2013, 12:34:45 PM
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.
Yeah.
This kind of stuff is not going to help the general public trust science. Just look at the anti-immunization lobby.
It's a bad situation, for sure.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 17, 2013, 04:49:04 PM
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.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 17, 2013, 05:43:50 PM
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?
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 17, 2013, 06:12:38 PM
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.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 17, 2013, 06:06:39 PM
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 (http://www.jnrbm.com/about)? How about the researchers who followed up on and repeated the methods of the arsenic eating bacteria paper (http://www.nature.com/news/study-challenges-existence-of-arsenic-based-life-1.9861)?
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 17, 2013, 06:51:52 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 17, 2013, 06:47:49 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 17, 2013, 05:31:09 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 17, 2013, 12:34:45 PM
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.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 17, 2013, 06:56:44 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 17, 2013, 06:51:52 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 17, 2013, 06:47:49 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 17, 2013, 05:31:09 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 17, 2013, 12:34:45 PM
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?
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 17, 2013, 07:13:54 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 17, 2013, 06:51:52 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 17, 2013, 06:47:49 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 17, 2013, 05:31:09 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 17, 2013, 12:34:45 PM
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.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 17, 2013, 06:56:44 PM
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.
Given that it was published in Science (the journal) that's not likely. Far more likely it was done to discredit open access journals, which were the target of the article. Because, you know, scientific journals are big bucks, and open access journals are stealing their dough.
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 17, 2013, 07:13:54 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 17, 2013, 06:51:52 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 17, 2013, 06:47:49 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 17, 2013, 05:31:09 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 17, 2013, 12:34:45 PM
It's just yet another reason not to trust pre-publication peer review to be more than a filter.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 17, 2013, 06:56:44 PM
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.
This has some of the most worrying implications for me. Taking crazy paranoid stance here, but if this can be done (and done easily it seems) for GMO, then I can't help but wonder/assume that this has been occurring with medication. There's a pandemic almost every year with X-flu. Someone's making all the anti-X-Flu medication. Someone appeared to already have a stockpile of it ready to go, with the ability to increase production further.
Obviously all of that would be done for altruistic reasons, not profiteering.
As Roger pointed out, all PR is now public relations. I wonder who will have the balls to go for it openly first. There's probably good cash to be made in pharmaceutical companies running their own journals and endorsing each other for other considerations.
Regardless of the intent, I expect that most people don't have the time to look into the subject in detail. They especially do not have time to determine whether or not any particular paper is valid or invalid.
This all contributes to a general suspicion of experts and 'intellectuals'. It makes it even easier for people to just shrug and decide that what they want to believe is backed up by good evidence and whatever disagrees with their preconceived notion is just special interest groups putting out lies.
You see this all the time around green politics. There doesn't seem to be any effort being made to address it. In fact, it looks like it is just going to get worse.
I am incredibly frustrated right now. I am somehow complicit in the breakdown of Science as we know it because I am not alarmed to the point of arm flailing about this situation. I just spent the last ten minutes ranting to one of my colleagues about this, and he agreed that in spite of all the recent exposees, peer review works as it always has. In any case, I'm done with this thread, because I don't think there is anything I can say to convince you all that Science and/or peer review isn't somehow broken or falling apart, that it is working much as it always has, and that you can't believe what you read. That last one, I thought, would be easy for Discordians.
Quote from: Kai on October 17, 2013, 07:21:28 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 17, 2013, 06:51:52 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 17, 2013, 06:47:49 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 17, 2013, 05:31:09 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 17, 2013, 12:34:45 PM
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?
Yes, well, I wasn't expecting plaster saints. What I WAS expecting was...erm, wait a moment...
Quote from: Kai on October 17, 2013, 07:49:38 PM
In any case, I'm done with this thread,
No sense stating my case, then.
Quote from: Junkenstein on October 17, 2013, 07:32:45 PM
As Roger pointed out, all PR is now public relations. I wonder who will have the balls to go for it openly first. There's probably good cash to be made in pharmaceutical companies running their own journals and endorsing each other for other considerations.
Naw. I'm just a stupid old man.
Peer review isn't down to public relations, it's just that it's failing in a lot of instances and the problem is that the media and the general public has no way of knowing when and where it's failing, so there is a lot of misinformation being passed off as science. It's not hard for me to see why laypeople are reacting the way they are to this problem; since they don't know WHICH studies are bullshit, from their perspective ANY studies they read about might as well be bullshit. And this is, in my opinion, a great big problem for science and scientists, because ultimately, these people and their votes are what decides public sector funding.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 18, 2013, 01:23:59 AM
Peer review isn't down to public relations, it's just that it's failing in a lot of instances and the problem is that the media and the general public has no way of knowing when and where it's failing, so there is a lot of misinformation being passed off as science. It's not hard for me to see why laypeople are reacting the way they are to this problem; since they don't know WHICH studies are bullshit, from their perspective ANY studies they read about might as well be bullshit. And this is, in my opinion, a great big problem for science and scientists, because ultimately, these people and their votes are what decides public sector funding.
Exactly my point. And there's a difference between fallibility in peer review and a group set up to deliberately distort data.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 17, 2013, 06:56:44 PM
Yeah.
This kind of stuff is not going to help the general public trust science. Just look at the anti-immunization lobby.
And I'm sure the creationists are having a field day. :x :x :x
Quote from: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on October 18, 2013, 01:44:37 AM
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 17, 2013, 06:56:44 PM
Yeah.
This kind of stuff is not going to help the general public trust science. Just look at the anti-immunization lobby.
And I'm sure the creationists are having a field day. :x :x :x
Yeah, the institute for intelligent design is going to be all over this strategy.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 18, 2013, 01:52:00 AM
Quote from: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on October 18, 2013, 01:44:37 AM
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 17, 2013, 06:56:44 PM
Yeah.
This kind of stuff is not going to help the general public trust science. Just look at the anti-immunization lobby.
And I'm sure the creationists are having a field day. :x :x :x
Yeah, the institute for intelligent design is going to be all over this strategy.
Don't forget the "alternative medicine" market as well. And Psychics. And anyone else with a vested interest in bullshit science.
I've had a think about this, and I think it's just part of the kick in the balls that comes with living in the Bullshit information age. Science should be one of the few areas where the "right" (or at least the least wrong) idea is developed and examined critically. By being able to bypass both of these criteria in this way it's actively setting back "good" science. Another part of the problem is the general public being able to tell "good" from "bad" in scientific terms. This puts you into "loudest monkey wins" territory which isn't going to end well either.