> I should also add that when it comes to pesticide research, I am more
> inclined to trust polemic publications like the Journal of Pesticide Reform
> because I can trust that their funds do not come from pesticide companies,
> which is more than we can say for most University pesticide research. Have
> you ever wondered about the selection process for the "peers" in a
> peer-reviewed journal? Team players play this game, not iconoclasts. Which
> leads me to another interesting observation. If the Journal of Pesticide
> Reform published untruths, surely the pesticide manufacturers would have
> litigated them into oblivion by now? Not so, ergo credibility that weighs
> in with more defensible integrity than some jury-rigged peer-reviewed
> journals.
SANET members may be interested to learn about just how pervasive
conflict of interest can be in industry-funded research conducted by
"independent" researchers. A recent issue of the New England Journal
of Medicine published a fascinating study that will confirm your
worst nightmares (and prejudices) about industry-published research -
all of it published in respected refereed journals. I have been off
of SANET for a while, due to other commitments, so if this article
has not been discussed, let me know and I'll outline it.
Regarding the J. of Pesticide Reform, it should be noted that the
article in question by Cox is not heresay, but crammed with
scientific, peer-reviewed articles in well known journals. Is it
possible to have a "slant" or bias when reviewing peer-reviewed
articles? Sure it is, but this is equally true for any position. It
always amazes me how readily some claim foul/fault in someone ELSE's
position, approach, or conclusions, when they themselves are subject
to the same foibles (I believe the current parlance is "junk
science").
The problem is "objectivity", which some scientists believe so
fervently (one might be tempted to say religiously) to be part and
parcel of the practice of science. The problem is that the
definition of objectivity is, itself, subjective - and most
especially in science. As commonly applied, one is seen to
be objective if one's values and beliefs conform to those of the
perceiver; if not, then you are being subjective. I regret to say
that too many of us are simply unable to see how our own values, and
beliefs, are shaping, coloring, and indeed - dare I say it - biasing
a) the questions we choose to ask, b) the treatments and
measurements we choose to make, and c) ultimately, the very
outcome of the research itself.
I say "we" because this is a universal affliction - the problem is not
the affliction but the adamant refusal to acknowledge it in the first
place, which leads some to maintain an excess of confidence (oops, I
almost said faith) in the honesty, integrity, and "rightness" of
refereed journal science. Ann
>
ACLARK@plant.uoguelph.ca
Dr. E. Ann Clark
Associate Professor
Crop Science
University of Guelph
Guelph, ON N1G 2W1
Phone: 519-824-4120 Ext. 2508
FAX: 519 763-8933
http://www.oac.uoguelph.ca/www/CRSC/faculty/eac.htm
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".