Restoring science to its rightful place…
The GOP study researched the federal government’s peer review process for 13 different endangered species listings made by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) since July 2013 and found examples of a lack of transparency and consistency.
The agency, according to the report, sometimes employs peer reviewers who authored studies on the species they are reviewing. The GOP staff determined that the peer review process as currently employed by the FWS “relies on a network of scientists who, if nothing else, have a professional and academic interest in the outcome of the ESA listing decisions they are being asked to review.”
“In recruiting peer reviewers, the FWS appears to favor scientists whose views on a species are already well known rather than more independent scientists in other academic or professional fields who would be able to bring a fresh perspective to the science the FWS is citing to support its ESA listing decisions,” it said.
“..the FWS “relies on a network of scientists who, if nothing else, have a professional and academic interest in the outcome of the ESA listing decisions they are being asked to review.”…”In recruiting peer reviewers, the FWS appears to favor scientists whose views on a species are already well known rather than more independent scientists in other academic or professional fields who would be able to bring a fresh perspective to the science..”
In Ontario, it’s called COSSARO. Here are its independent, unbiased members:
https://www.pas.gov.on.ca/scripts/en/BoardDetails.asp?boardID=141880
None of them with an iron in the fire….yeah….right.
Incedences like back in 2001 when they cut off the water to the Klamath basin over two worthless trash fish and a speices of salmon like in the Central Valley their waters shut off over some dumb fish(Delta Smelt)like with the Spotted Owl incedent the ESA is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and former Inferior Secratary Bruce(Babbling)Babbit(Under King Willaim the Rapist)blabbered the ESA WORKS PERIOD typical of a liberal demacrat who once belonged to the wrongly named LEAGUE of CONSERVATION VOTERS
Part and parcel with the EPA extending their reach. Government by bureaucratic whim, anyone?
It is heresy to question the clergy of the green theocracy. Incestuous rent seeking and Lysenkoism go hand in hand. The pollution caused from government funding – spilling the green over all of academia that fall in line makes peer review sketchy to say the least. A real scientist postulating an hypothesis on an issue on the climate or wildlife should be seeking those from reputable sources from an opposing camp or throwing it open to the public for peer review, not fellow rent seekers or hysteria pimps from the ENGO community. It doesn’t help that guild socialism exists in the professional communities that maintains coercive state protection to the guilds.
…but of course, that’s what peer review is all about.
Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people:
First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.
Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.
The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.
Its a bigger crime to chop down a tree witha spotted owl nest then it is to murder your own unborn child and many eco-freaks have bought into this Population Bomb poppycock of Paul Ehrlich Hook,Line & Sinker
“…in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people:”
Funny, I thought there was another kind: the assholes who are in it for themselves.
The “the assholes who are in it for themselves” ARE the second group in a bureaucracy. They are totally dedicated to the organization and the power, prestige and rewards it gives them. They don’t care what the organization does, that’s completely immaterial. It’s all about power and control. The more disconnected from the intended goals of the organization they get, the more ‘assholey’ they become. Almost all of them worship money as their only god, and that determines the ‘morality’ of their actions. If it’s profitable, then it’s OK, regardless of what harm it might cause to people or the planet.
At the link below you will find the following statement regarding some of the consequences of fraudulent science.
“The scandal tarnished the reputation of Riken, a semi-governmental institute that is one of Japan’s most prestigious research centers. Obokata’s supervisor hanged himself in August after months of stress and exhaustion.”
My take on peer review is this. If the data is developed using bad methodology or technique or is fabricated or otherwise manipulated then peer review is worthless since peer review does not normally attempt to verify the data but rather only to verify the stated conclusions BASED ON THE DATA PROVIDED.
Thus, the research by Obakata which was originally published in the prestigious journal Nature after peer review was worthless. Thus the research published by Felicia Wolfe-Simon on Arsenic based life was published in the prestigious journal Science after peer review was worthless.
We should never forget the computer maxim GIGO and insist that scientists adopt the Japanese model for worthless research ……….
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/12/19/disgraced-japan-researcher-fails-to-replicate-game-changing-stem-cell-results/?intcmp=ob_homepage_health&intcmp=obnetwork
The peer review system is flawed. It’s little more than “I’ll scratch your back, you scratch mine” in the publish-or-perish fantasy world of academic research.