flynn002

In Merchants of Doubt , Eric Conway and Naomi Oreskes describe how raising doubt can be used as an effective weapon against inconvenient science. On topics such as the effects of tobacco on health, climate change and causes of acid rain, it has been possible to delay or curb action to tackle problems by simply emphasising the lack of scientific consensus. This is always an option, because science is characterised by uncertainty, and indeed, we move forward by challenging one another’s findings: only a dead science would have no disagreements. But those raising concerns wield a two-edged sword: spurious and discredited criticisms can disrupt scientific progress, especially if the arguments are complex and technical: people will be left with a sense that they cannot trust the findings, even if they don’t fully understand the matters under debate. The parallels with Merchants of Doubt occurred to me as I re-read the critique by Gilbert et al of the classic paper by the Open Science Colla...

In recent weeks, I’ve seen tweets from a handful of people I follow saying they are thinking of giving up Twitter because it has become so negative. Of course they are entitled to do so, and they may find that it frees up time and mental space that could be better used for other things. The problem, though, is that I detect a sense of regret. And this is appropriate because Twitter, used judiciously, has great potential for good. For me as an academic, the benefits include: ·       Finding out about latest papers and other developments relevant to my work ·       Discovering new people with interesting points of view – often these aren’t eminent or well-known and I’d never have come across them if I hadn’t been on social media ·       Being able to ask for advice from experts – sometimes getting a remarkably quick and relevant response ·       Being able to interact with non-academics who...

Incredible things have happened at the US Environmental Protection Agency since Donald Trump was elected. The agency is responsible for creating standards and laws that promote the health of individuals and the environment. During previous administrations it has overseen laws concerned with controlling pollution and regulating carbon emissions. Now, under Administrator Scott Pruitt, the voice of industry and climate scepticism is in the ascendant.  A new rule that purports to 'Strengthen Transparency in Regulatory Science' has now been proposed - ironically, at a time when the EPA is being accused of a culture of secrecy regarding its own inner workings . Anyone can comment on the rule here: I have done so, but my comment appears to be in moderation, so I am posting it here. Dear Mr Pruitt re: Regulatory Science- Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259 The proposed rule, ‘Strengthening transparency in regulatory science’ brings together two strands of contemporary scientific activi...

Last week, Robert J. Sternberg resigned as Editor of Perspectives on Psychological Science after a series of criticisms of his behaviour on social media. I first became aware of this issue when Bobbie Spellman wrote a blogpost explaining why she was not renewing her membership of the Association for Psychological Science, noting concerns about Sternberg’s editorial bias and high rate of self-citation, among other issues. Then a grad student at the University of Leicester, Brendan O’Connor, noted that Sternberg not only had a tendency to cite his own work; he also recycled large portions of written text in his publications. Nick Brown publicised some striking examples on his blog , and Retraction Watch subsequently published an interview with O’Connor explaining the origins of the story. In discussing his resignation, Sternberg admitted to ‘lapses in judgement and mistakes’ but also reprimanded those who had outed him for putting their concerns online, rather than contacting him dire...