Agricultural Department At Odds with Science and the Peer Review Process

Should the scientists working for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, upon completion of the intense process of peer review, be forced to label their reports as “Preliminary?” Won’t this suggest to readers that such reports and the underlying research has not been subjected to exhaustive scrutiny before approval?

That’s the issue in the article linked above, but it’s hardly a new one. I’m reminded of the shredding of U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry (see video below) in which, much to his horror, it becomes obvious that he really had no conception of how science works, i.e., how the peer review process is considered to be the “gold standard” for sharing scientific research, representing an intensive back-and-forth process between the study’s authors and experts in their fields on whether a paper meets the rigorous standards that are required for inclusion into the scientific literature.

From the article: Calling a study that has already undergone such a rigorous process “preliminary” could undermine the study by suggesting to readers that its findings are less systematic, comprehensive, and robust.

All this raises that horrible question: Why? Who stands to gain by making it harder for our scientists to have impact on the policy-making that affects the health and safety of all Americans? Well, not to be cynical, but think for a minute the size of the industry regulated by these agencies within the USDA:

…. and then ask yourself, “Do you think there is any money at stake in all this?”

marcopolo says:

May 22, 2019 at 3:50 am

Craig,

Goodness me, such angry conspiracy theories combined with outrage at any questioning of the orthodoxy of your ‘faith based’ belief in “Climate Change”.

The spirit of science is a never ending search for the unknown, aided by an objective and unemotional appraisal of information from all sources.

What you have done, is conceive a “moral” or ideological theory, then adopted only those “scientific” facts, evidence or information that buttresses your assumptions. You have used a distorted version of “science” to devise a doctrine for which you demand universal acceptance, along with rigid adherence to orthodoxy tenets.

Anyone disagreeing, or even questioning, any aspect of your doctrine can expect to be vilified, abused and shouted down.

You have abandoned “science” in favor of becoming a crusading advocate for a sort of new religion, complete with high priests, acolytes, preachers, devotees and inquisitors.

Ex Senator,( and unrepentant sexual predator), Al Franken claims man-made CO2 is the sole cause of Climate Change.

Rick Perry disagrees, stating that while human activity certainly plays a major part, other factors should also be considered and researched.

But the the headline you gleefully publicize, reads “Al Franken humiliates Rick Perry on climate change”.

Why must anyone be “humiliated” for expressing a sensible and moderate viewpoint ? Why must you be so “outraged” and “combative”?

The planet’s climate has been continuously changing since formation 4.53 billion years ago.

No-one has complete ownership of “absolute scientific truth” ! Such a concept doesn’t exist. At the best, scientific research can answer some questions while often creating more.

Like most processes created by humans, the peer review process is neither infallible, ‘perfect’ or free from potential tampering or corruption. This has become especially true in the age of social media.

“Scientists” are not all noble, “moral super-beings” or infallible. They are subject to the same personality flaws and ambitions as other humans.

Secretary Rick Perry prefaced his reply with the observation that he was addressing the issues under discussion from an “economic perspective”.

Considering that’s his primary task as a government administrator, why do you feel it’s so improper for him to express concern about “money” ?

The effects and consequences of made-made climate change remain proper subjects for ongoing research and debate.

The most effective and beneficial methods of mitigating undesirable effects and consequences of climate change, whatever the cause, also remain proper subjects for ongoing consideration, evaluation, research and discussion.

Unemotional,rational, constructive and objective consideration should replace hysterical, political-ideological driven “crusades” or devising new quasi-religious movements.

The planet need real “science” not fanaticism and intolerance.

Agricultural Department At Odds with Science and the Peer Review Process

One comment on “Agricultural Department At Odds with Science and the Peer Review Process”