17 January 2004

Review? Review? We don't need no steeenking reviews!

[source, source]

A number of leading researchers are mobilizing against a Bush administration plan that would require new health and environmental regulations to rely more solidly on science that has been peer-reviewed — an awkward situation in which scientists find themselves arguing against one of the universally accepted gold standards of good science.

Yes, it’s one thing to publish good science in a journal, where it’s important to be correct. For public policy, obviously, being correct isn’t of much importance so why burden the regulators with it?

Posted by orbital at 11:18 PM | View 0 TrackBacks | Trackback URL