>> I took a random sample of about twenty of the 250 ACSH board
>> members and looked up their publications. More than half have
>> published extensively in peer-reviewed journals....
> But even taking you at your word, what you're telling us is that 11
> of the 250 ACSH board members, or 4 percent, have published
> extensively in peer-reviewed journals and appear to be productive..
No, the best estimate (given the tiny bit of time I'm willing to spend on
this) is that around half of the board (that is 125 people) appear to be
productive scientists. The rest are mainly physicians.
> I'm not sure what conclusions you're drawing from this.
Bunny asked "who is the ACSH?" I found that the ACSH board is made up of a
large number of people possessing, as far as I can tell, appropriate
>> That doesn't mean their findings are wrong.
> Right and wrong aren't the point. The formulation and shaping of
> hypotheses, of testing mechanisms, of interpretation, of
> presentation, and of review is what I saw being questioned. Not
> abstract categories of ultimate right and wrong.
Perhaps I should have chosen more precise words. By "right versus wrong" I
just meant true versus false. The central point here is whether the finding
of the report is true (are environmental estrogens really a negligible risk
as the report claims?)
> Besides, everyone knows that scientists can't be wrong.
Misha, this is an important issue. There is so much propaganda flying
around, that it takes some effort to sift out the reliable information.
People should read the report, perhaps read some of the papers cited, and
decide for themselves.
> Turn these questions/issues over--at the same level of funding--to a
> public interest research program designed and overseen by citizens.
Isn't that a public University?
> Let citizens be part of the research teams, equal and respected
> members, and let them also generate not only the hypotheses but the
> experimental methods and designs to test them...
I don't think most people have the time or expertise to do that.
> Let them work with researchers on the narrow-scope technical stuff
> that researchers know best... But let citizens contribute the parts
> that they know best--the whole-systems perspectives.
Quantifying toxicological risk from environmental endocrine modulators
strikes me as rather narrow and technical. The systems perspective that I
think you are advocating (encompassing social, economic, agricultural and
industrial policy) needs sober, technical estimates of risk as input.
Otherwise the community might waste it's effort solving non-problems.
> Well, minus the funding levels and insulation from critique to which
> many corporate and university scientists are accustomed.
I agree that scientists should be less insulated. And I agree that many
grants are too large and waste public money.
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: