Read this farewell speechby Dwight Eisenhower
Stunning, considering the fact that he was a military guy himself and a two term republican. His comments about the military industrial complex and research are thought provoking. His prediction of the creation of a dependency of free universities on federal money is bang on. Given that none of us know of a different world, one can only wonder what research might have been like otherwise.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Open review
We live in strange times. I had been a more or less dispassionate observer of the whole Korean cloning scandal. Till today that is. Some Catholic bishop in the United States chided the scientific community for pursuing miracle cures. I did a double take on reading it. Then I paused and did another double take on reading the "miracle" part. For a group whose claim among many others include the miraculous virginity of JC's mom, this was a rather brave statement. And aren't saints supposed to induce miracle cures?
I have faith in Science (not just the journal, but the real thing too). Scientists err once in a while. However other scientists manage to shoot down flying ostriches. So, science doesn't err. It's a methodology and how can a methodology that says "never trust and keep verifying" ever err? Why it took 20 months to shoot down this ostrich? It takes time for absolute outsiders to a project to convince themselves of anything. It takes time for whistle blowers to convince outsiders of anything wrong going on. It takes time for them to form a critical mass and demand that the flying bird lose its wings. What is the way out of this time lag? Some journals have started what is one of the better ways out. Use the power of the web. Have two sets of open reviews. Currently, peer reviews are invariably closed. The authors never know who the reviewer is. Making the reviewers known to the author and other readers induces them to be more vigilant. Also, as a few journals have tried, have a second review process wherein any scientist with a login provided to the journal website can choose to review the pending publication. The power of numbers is sometimes severely underestimated. Remember the Dan Rather 60 minutes scandal? What happened there was a bunch of bloggers took on the role of "open-reviewers" and moved much faster than CBS with its limited number of specialists ever could. In that case, who arrived at the truth first mattered most.
Peer-review is one of the gods of science. This God has lacunae. Given that this is a science God, unlike Nietzsche's God who is dead once he evades reasoning, this God shall evolve.
I have faith in Science (not just the journal, but the real thing too). Scientists err once in a while. However other scientists manage to shoot down flying ostriches. So, science doesn't err. It's a methodology and how can a methodology that says "never trust and keep verifying" ever err? Why it took 20 months to shoot down this ostrich? It takes time for absolute outsiders to a project to convince themselves of anything. It takes time for whistle blowers to convince outsiders of anything wrong going on. It takes time for them to form a critical mass and demand that the flying bird lose its wings. What is the way out of this time lag? Some journals have started what is one of the better ways out. Use the power of the web. Have two sets of open reviews. Currently, peer reviews are invariably closed. The authors never know who the reviewer is. Making the reviewers known to the author and other readers induces them to be more vigilant. Also, as a few journals have tried, have a second review process wherein any scientist with a login provided to the journal website can choose to review the pending publication. The power of numbers is sometimes severely underestimated. Remember the Dan Rather 60 minutes scandal? What happened there was a bunch of bloggers took on the role of "open-reviewers" and moved much faster than CBS with its limited number of specialists ever could. In that case, who arrived at the truth first mattered most.
Peer-review is one of the gods of science. This God has lacunae. Given that this is a science God, unlike Nietzsche's God who is dead once he evades reasoning, this God shall evolve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)