Science needs both more liberalisation, and
protection from liberal interpretation.
Scientists live in a world of truths backed by
data, carefully scrutinised by a knowledgeable peer group through the pages of
scientific journals. Yet it is the process of peer review that is the source of
concern.
Firstly, the cost of simply subscribing to
scientific journals, controlled by a publishing industry desperate to hang on
to revenues, means that it's expensive for scientists to get exposed to the
full flow of scientific thought in their chosen domain. In April 2012 Harvard
University in the US encouraged its faculty members to submit papers to
open-access journals; unsurprising when you learn that the university's
subscription costs were running at $3.5m a year.
Secondly, and more worryingly, is the danger of
groupthink, where the peer group ridicules any idea offered that deviates too
far from the mean. The chances of anything too radical seeing the light of day
is slim, not least because referees are likely to withhold support for anything
seen as too outrageous. But how can science make great strides when shackled
like this?
A wider problem facing science is an excess of
liberalism by the media and pressure groups in misinterpreting scientific data,
or skewing it to support a particular agenda. The tragedy of the debate about
climate change is that the public understanding of this vital issue has been
muddied and confused by sloppy and biased reporting that would never be
tolerated on a non-scientific subject.
Science is too important to be left to the
scientists, yet too precious to be left in the hands of non-scientists. Work
that one out, liberals!
Henry 's email
No comments:
Post a Comment