Comments on: Countering Sen. Kerry’s Catastrophic Climate Claims (Part 2)

By: Marlo Lewis

Marlo Lewis — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 22:11:48 +0000

Yes, very valuable column, Ken.

A glaring example of how easily peer review becomes cronyism and old boy network is PNAS, the flagship publication of the National Academy. Academy members get to “line up” their own referees for papers they submit (Science magazine, 18 September 2009, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/325/5947/1486-b.pdf). Until recently, they could also extend this “privilege” to papers submitted by friends who were not yet Academy members.

At a February 25, 2009, House Ways and Means Committee hearing, James Hansen declined to address John Christy’s critique of Hansen’s climate sensitivity assumptions. Hansen told the Committee to refer the issue to the National Academy and accept its verdict as authoritative. Hansen is a National Academy member, Christy is not. So what Hansen was really proposing was to let the old boy network to which he belongs settle the matter. A blog post I did on this incident in light of Science magazine’s column about peer review cronyism at PNAS is available here: http://www.openmarket.org/2009/09/23/pnas-peer-review-or-old-boy-network/

By: kgreen

kgreen — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 22:30:07 +0000

Thanks for the kind remark, Jon!

By: Robert Bradley Jr.

Robert Bradley Jr. — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:34:25 +0000

I think we also need to keep in mind the ‘smartest guy in the room’ problem–and the ‘silver bullet’ approach to energy policy where it is believed that genius can transform the energy market according to political desire.

I am reminded about Samuel Insull’s recollection of an exchange he had with Thomas Edison:

“I asked [Edison] once whether he believed in genius. He said not he did not, ‘It is all bunk.’ I said, ‘What do you believe in?’ He replied, ‘I believe in the experience of a man who knows a few thousand things that won’t work.’”

I wish DOE secretary Paul Chu, science advisor Jophn Holdren and the rest knew what didn’t work.

By: Jon Boone

Jon Boone — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 15:19:58 +0000

Outstanding piece, beautifully written and argued. Science is foremost a methodology for inquiry and validation, insisting upon skeptical, disinterested experiment, evaluating prediction in ways that require replication by others who are themselves disinterested. Because financial reward and career opportunity creates such bias in the halls of those working as “scientists,” disinterest, the bedrock of scientific inquiry, is in very short supply. Peer review in today’s institutionalized systems of grants and contracts has a distinct ecclesiastical character, with Scribes and Pharisees sanctifying doctrine. And the Devil takes the hindmost….

Happy Holidays!