Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

[Barry Karr <SkeptInq@AOL.COM>]

The Politics of Peer Review

Expert review of scientific information is usually a good thing. But as a recent White House proposal to expand peer review of government regulatory science shows, there are big exceptions.

Chris Mooney; January 8, 2004

The rigorous vetting of unpublished research by independent, qualified experts--what's often called "peer review"--is an undisputed cornerstone of modern science. Central to the competitive clash of ideas that moves knowledge forward, peer review enjoys so much renown in the scientific community that studies lacking its imprimatur meet with automatic skepticism. Academic reputations hinge on an ability to get work through peer review and into leading journals; university presses employ peer review to decide which books they're willing to publish; and federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health use peer review to weigh the merits of applications for federal research grants. When members of Congress make an end run around this vetting process and pump R & D cash directly into their home districts, they're widely disparaged for supporting a particularly odious and anti-scientific version of pork-barrel politics.

To Read More of This Column Visit: http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/peerreview/