|
Back to SCIENCE Homepage
Peer review of science is not always as independent
as it is sometimes claimed to be
James Irvine
Teviot Scientific Publications Ltd, Edinburgh
Filed 14 Feb 06
©www.land-care.org.uk
The current issue of Sheep Farmer,
the Journal of the National Sheep Association, carries an article
by Nora Hunter, of the Institute of Animal Health, Edinburgh entitled
"Response to concerns of Mr Elliot about NSP" (National
Scrapie Plan) (1).
Mr George Elliot was deeply sceptical
about the motives behind the NSP, and Nora Hunter attempted to reassure
him. Indeed she wrote an impressive, well reasoned article until
it came to her last point when she tried to assure Mr Elliot that
everything was fine in science on account of its peer review system
for the awarding of funding and the publication of scientific papers.
But talking in general terms, without
specific reference to NSP, the peer review system is not always
that paradigm of virtue that some would have us believe. The reality
is that it is very difficult to achieve an independent review of
any scientific topic, such is human nature. Such a cynical observation
comes from many years of experience of editing scientific journals
and from being involved in the competitive race for funding for
scientific projects. Indeed, in recent years the situation may have
significantly deteriorated.
Unless the peer, or referee, is exceptionally
well disposed ethically and thereby willing to sacrifice his status
among his influential colleagues if the need arises, he or she may
well be tempted to see what advantage or disadvantage the particular
project in question has for him or her, either personally or in
relation to his department or research team. It is likely that he
may be very much involved in the race for funding himself. Or, if
it is matter of recommending those to be appointed to influential
committees related to science, he may feel it expedient to keep
in mind what those in government (who may be required to approve
of his own position) think is appropriate. The appointment of key
personnel to many so-called "independent" committees or
organisations set up under the auspices of government, have to have
the approval, either directly or indirectly, of government ministers.
Such positions may carry substantial financial remuneration, and
other benefits that may be bestowed at the discretion of government
should their approved appointee deliver the goods according to their
wishes.
In terms of funding for research
there are many alleged occasions where, if the project does not
appear to conform with government policy, funding will not be forthcoming.
This is hardly the way to achieve what is referred to as "independent
peer review". Nor is it the way to achieve good science, or
the application of good science.
One does not need to look far for
examples.
The over-emphasis on epidemiological
modelling, at the expense of concentrating on reliable rapid on-farm
diagnostic tests, was all too evident in the management of the UK
Foot and Mouth epidemic of 2001 (FMD UK2001). That the problem is
not confined to the UK is clearly evident from the letter written
by Dr Roger Breeze, previously director of US Department of Agriculture
at Plum Island, New York published 30th January 2006 on www.warmwell.com
(2). Nearer home, evidence of biased "peer
review" is given in the submissions to the Royal Society of
Edinburgh Inquiry on Foot and Mouth Disease in Scotland (3).
Indeed, Dr Colin Fink of Micropathology Ltd, University of Warwick
Science Park, UK re-emphasises the situation in his response, also
published on www.warmwell.com, to Roger Breeze's unequivocal statement
(4),
Concerns about an unacceptable level
of bias in terms of the scientific advice to politicians and the
selection of research funding in relation to FMD and BSE was rife
in the articles published under the heading of Muckspreader in Private
Eye, and in more measured terms relating to BSE by Magnus Linklater
writing in The Times (5).
Again, one has only to look at the
long-running debacle over the control of bovine TB in the UK to
realise that all may not be well with the committee structure set
up by government to advise on this now hugely serious problem. Through
procrastination and the miss-application of science, the problem
continues to escalate (6, 7).
The UK has by far the worst record of bovine TB in the EU15.
But poor peer review is not the only
shortcoming when the place of science in relation to government
is assessed. Government and its agencies (8),
lobby groups such as Environment LINK (9)
and registered Charities such as the RSPCA (10)
are allegedly quite capable of misrepresenting science in order
to achieve their aims.
Lastly government, its agencies and
lobby groups not infrequently quote scientific opinion to promote
their cause in the absence of any peer review. Such "scientific
reports" are not infrequently commissioned - they may even
be put out to tender. Not surprisingly it would appear that such
commissioned "scientific" reports conveniently provide
the answers that the paymaster was looking for. Indeed it is possible
that such reports may come from research establishments that are
heavily funded by the government, government agency or lobby group.
The main concern, however, must surely
be the manner whereby government can determine who heads up major
"independent" advisory groups that they fund and whose
advice they want to take. If the government is determined to follow
a political ideology whatever the science, obviously it has to take
care to make sure the "right" person is appointed. And,
in order to encourage others, to make sure afterwards, when the
debacle is obvious for all to see, that such a loyal servant gets
duly rewarded.
So at the end of the day much of
the problem boils down to the integrity of government and prominent
organisations registered as charities. Sadly, politicians have an
even worse reputation in the integrity stakes than do the miscellany
of people who now call themselves "scientists".
©www.land-care.org.uk
References
1. Hunter, Nora (2006).
Response to concerns of Mr Elliot about NSP.
Sheep Farmer, January/February 2006: p 2.
2. Breeze, Roger
(2006). Letter to Mary Critchley of Warmwell, 30th January 06
See www.warmwell.com/breezejan06.html Click
Here to View pdf
3. Royal Society
of Edinburgh (2002). Inquiry into Foot and Mouth Disease in Scotland
2001.
http://www.royalsoced.org.uk
4. Fink, Colin (2006).
Letter to Mary Critchley of Warmwell, February 2006
See www.warmwell.com/06feb4fink.html Click
Here to View pdf
5. Linklater, Magnus
(2003). Government stops funding for BSE critic.
Reproduced by permission from The Times, 24th April 2003.
See TSE Homepage, filed 25 Apr 03, www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
6. Irvine, James
(2003). TB in cattle and badgers: the Zucherman Report (1980) revisited.
See TB Homepage, filed 10 Mar 03, www.land-care.org.uk
Click
Here to View
7. DEFRA (2006).
Bovine TB statistics: latest provisionally available (by region)
for 2005
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/stats/index.html Click
Here to View pdf
8. Irvine, James
(2003). Arran Moors: scientific objection to its designation as
SSSI and SAP. Editorial re LandCare Scotland 2002, vol 2:pp51-167.
See ENVIRONMENT Homepage, filed 10 Jul 03, www.land-care.org.uk
Click
Here to View
9. Irvine, James
(2004). Concerns about the validity of statements on the condition
of SSSIs in Scotland made by members of Environment LINK.
Review and comment on a case study presented by Kirsty Macleod at
People TOO conference Perth
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 17 Nov 04,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
10. Vaughan, Gareth
(2006). Are the RSPCA justified?
The Scottish Farmer, February 11, 2006, p 8.
©www.land-care.org.uk
|
