Slowly Strangling America's Golden Goose

Imagine: You wake up tomorrow and find that America’s judicial system has changed. Now, prosecutors can present secret witness testimony and only provide their own brief excerpts or summaries to the defense; judges are no longer independent, they have been replaced by the prosecutor’s boss. Your first thought, “Now, we will get much needed criminal convictions.” Then, “Ohmygosh! Are we in deep yogurt! We have seen all that before, in the Spanish Inquisition and in virtually every totalitarian regime on Earth, so we know what will happen. Soon people will begin to denounce other people, for a variety of reasons – it’s a great way to get rig of competitors, an annoying mother-in-law, and anyone who rubs you the wrong way. Corruption will set in. And people will become pale-gray, embracing group-think, and shying away from new ideas or actions that might attract attention and invite being denounced.”

This must be a nightmare. It can’t happen in America. Right? No, wrong! It has happened in America. Not in the judicial system, but in the system for administrating government support for science. It began about five decades ago when the administrative framework was set in place. Somebody back then had the bright idea that, if peer reviewers were anonymous and free from accountability, they would be more candid and more truthful. For about five decades, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and other agencies have institutionalized the use of secret reviews and seem to think that all is well. But all is not well! For decades NSF, NASA and other agencies have been doing what no foreign adversary or terrorist organization has been able to do: They have been slowly and imperceptibly undermining American science, driving America toward third-world status in science.

Secret, unaccountable reviews – frequently by one’s competitors – give unfair advantage to reviewers who would falsely berate a competitor’s proposal for research funds. The funding agencies, of course, tacitly assume that all reviewers will be honest. If you are dissatisfied with any aspect of the agency’s handling of your research proposal, you are free to appeal to the program manager’s boss. And you know how eager government officials are to admit and to correct their mistakes. There is no ombudsman involved, and no will or mechanism to report suspected fraud to the Justice Department. The system has been to open to corruption for decades, and remains open to further corruption.

There is a far, far more devastating consequence of secret, unaccountable reviews: Out of fear of being “denounced” in secret reviews, many scientists have become pale-gray, defensive, adopting only the consensus-approved viewpoint and refraining from discussing anything that might be considered a challenge to other’s work or to the funding agency’s programs. Political correctness is the order. And, that is not science at all. Real science is about challenging present perceptions and discovering what is wrong with current thinking.

Science is the mother of technology, which makes our economy robust and our military strong. Science is truly the goose that lays golden eggs. But for decades, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and other agencies have been strangling that goose with maladministration.

For the past three Administrations, I have brought this problem to the attention of senior administration officials. But, to my knowledge, none have taken any positive action or advised their President. That’s not surprising, as it would force those administrators to admit their own malfeasance. And you know…. I’m sure, though, that one day they will correct matters. When? Perhaps, when the unicorns come home to roost and when the Earth stops spinning.

So, if anyone personally knows America’s CEO, please give him a heads-up. He has a problem he doesn’t even know about that is every bit as serious as Al Qaeda. And, don’t think that the problem is just about science. It is a problem that is crippling American education as well. And, it is a problem that can be fixed.

For decades NSF, NASA and other agencies have been doing what no foreign adversary or terrorist organization has been able to do: They have been slowly and imperceptibly undermining American science, driving America toward third-world status in science...

Via Strategy Page, here's an interesting list of twenty facts you didn't know about Israel, the 100th smallest country with less than 1/1000th of the world's population:

Israel leads the world in the number of scientists and technicians in the workforce, with 145 per 10,000, as opposed to 85 in the U.S., over 70 in Japan, and less than 60 in Germany. With over 25% of its work force employed in technical professions, Israel places first in this category as well.

Israel has the highest ratio of university degrees to the population in the world.

Israel has the highest per capita ratio of scientific publications in the world by a large margin, as well as one of the highest per capita rates of patents filed.

In proportion to its population, Israel has the largest number of startup companies in the world. In absolute terms, Israel has the largest number of startup companies than any other country in the world, except the U.S. (3,500 companies mostly in hi-tech).

Israel is ranked #2 in the world for VC funds right behind the U.S.

Israel has the highest percentage in the world of home computers per capita.

Outside the U.S. and Canada, Israel has the largest number of NASDAQ listed companies.

Israel has the highest average living standards in the Middle East. The per capita income in 2000 is over $17,500, exceeding that of Britain.

With more than 3,000 high-tech companies and start-ups, Israel has the highest concentration of hi-tech companies in the world apart from the Silicon Valley.

With an aerial arsenal of over 250 F-16s, Israel has the largest fleet of the aircraft outside of the U.S.

Israel's $100 billion economy is larger than all of its immediate neighbors combined.

The cell phone was developed in Israel by Motorola-Israel. Motorola built its largest development center worldwide in Israel.

Windows NT software was developed by Microsoft-Israel. The Pentium MMX Chip technology was designed in Israel at Intel.

Voice mail technology was developed in Israel. AOL's instant message program was designed by an Israeli software company.

Both Microsoft and Cisco built their only R&D facilities outside the U.S. in Israel.

On a per capita basis, Israel has the largest number of biotech start-ups.

Israel has the largest raptor migration in the world, with hundreds of thousands of African birds of prey crossing as they fan out into Asia.

Some 24% of Israel's workforce holds university degrees -- ranking third in the industrialized world, after the U.S. and Holland -- and 12% hold advanced degrees.

(other than the largest raptor migration in the world, there's got to be a message in there somewhere! Without 'peer review' the world may have been deprived of algore and globullwarming...!)

Somebody back then had the bright idea that, if peer reviewers were anonymous and free from accountability, they would be more candid and more truthful. For about five decades, ...NSF, NASA and other agencies have been doing what no foreign adversary or terrorist organization has been able to do: They have been slowly and imperceptibly undermining American science, driving America toward third-world status in science. Secret, unaccountable reviews - frequently by one's competitors - give unfair advantage to reviewers who would falsely berate a competitor's proposal for research funds... The system has been to open to corruption for decades, and remains open to further corruption... There is a far, far more devastating consequence of secret, unaccountable reviews: Out of fear of being "denounced" in secret reviews, many scientists have become pale-gray, defensive, adopting only the consensus-approved viewpoint and refraining from discussing anything that might be considered a challenge to other's work or to the funding agency's programs. Political correctness is the order.

Thanks FGS.

Ernest Lawrence, a pure experimentalist... said, "Don't you worry about it -- the theorists will find a way to make them all the same." -- Alvarez by Luis Alvarez (page 184)

I must reiterate my feeling that experimentalists always welcome the suggestions of the theorists. But the present situation is ridiculous... In my considered opinion the peer review system, in which proposals rather than proposers are reviewed, is the greatest disaster to be visited upon the scientific community in this century. No group of peers would have approved my building the 72-inch bubble chamber. Even Ernest Lawrence told me that he thought I was making a big mistake. He supported me because my track record was good. I believe U.S. science could recover from the stultifying effects of decades of misguided peer reviewing if we returned to the tried-and-true method of evaluating experimenters rather than experimental proposals. Many people will say that my ideas are elitist, and I certainly agree. The alternative is the egalitarianism that we now practice and that I've seen nearly kill basic science in the USSR and in the People's Republic of China. -- ibid (pp 200-201)

From HERE:

~snip~

The Roles of Scholarly Journals

Although the motivation for creating Philosophical Transactions was primarily to limit controversy and promote an orderly scientific institution with a hierarchy based on peer-defined excellence, it is the role of disseminating information that forms the crux of the debate over how the scholarly publication process should be structured. To make sense of the debate, it is helpful to distinguish two somewhat different forms of dissemination that along with ensuring authors receive appropriate credit for their intellectual achievements form the three core purposes fulfilled by scholarly journals. The first is facilitating the exchange of ideas among scholars working in the same narrow field that is the engine of progress. The second is forming a constantly evolving historical archive of scholarly thought. These three roles of journals have different though overlapping requirements that are also to some extent in conflict.
Science and scholarship is a social activity. Communication among scientists in a field is an essential ingredient for scientific progress and thrives on the free interactive exchange of ideas. The vetting of poor quality material through peer review provides little value for experts in a field while significantly hampering the interactive nature of this type of communication. Likewise, copyediting and typesetting are not particularly helpful as long as a manuscript adequately communicates the intended meaning and again just hinders the interactive nature of the communication. Traditional peer-reviewed journals have never served this role particularly well and their weaknesses have become increasingly apparent, as advances in technology have provided other more suitable options. This role has begun to shift to other forms of communication and in particular, preprint archives, the most notable of which is the arXiv.org in physics and computer science [5]. It is interesting to note that while arXiv.org has become the predominant way physicists communicate, the traditional peer-reviewed physics journals remain strong and in fact have the highest average subscription fees of the journals in any scientific field! [6]
Peer-reviewed journals also serve as a continually updated comprehensive and authoritative archive of knowledge. While it is important that the archive reflect the current thought and findings within the field, the need for quick turnaround from submission to dissemination is far less crucial than for the role of supporting interactive communication among experts in a field. Ensuring the accuracy and quality of the information contained in a manuscript as well as the clarity of the writing and quality of the presentation is far more important and in some cases crucial [7]. What is also crucial for this role is the robustness and stability of the archive. Traditional paper journals have served this role exceedingly well. Ironically, what are generally seen as limitations of paper as a media help make it well suited for this role.
The time consuming and expensive task creating multiple copies and distributing them to hundreds if not thousands of research libraries creates an incredibly robust archive that is virtually indestructible with the exception of the slow breakdown of paper over time. It is not that in theory an equally robust electronic archive could be created, it is just not an inherent feature of the media.
Likewise, the immutability of paper creates an almost neurotic concern about the accuracy of the material and the clarity of the presentation that helps ensure a high quality product. As stated by Burbules and Bruce (1995):
"On the other hand, the care and precision of proofreading, revision, editing, designing and typesetting manuscripts to create an authoritative (and aesthetically appealing) version of an author or authors' document has traditionally been linked with the finality of creating a printed, bound version that will be archived as such for posterity. Both the producer of the text and its editor and publisher have a common interest in seeing it be as complete, persuasive and carefully written as possible, since there is a sense in which, once published, there is no taking it back. The printed medium, therefore, has distinct benefits" [8].

Again, it is not that this level of care and concern cannot be achieved in electronic publication; it is just not an inherent feature of the media.
As has been the case for hundreds of years, publication in peer-review journals remains a cornerstone in the ranking of scholarly achievement. What has changed is that there are now thousands of peer-reviewed journals. A hierarchy of journals has developed in most fields that form a complex ranking system for the quality of an individual's scholarship. To some extent, this hierarchy of journals is contained in a tacit understanding among the scholars in a field. As noted by Guédon (2001) it has also been codified to some degree through citation indexes that record the extent journals are cited. Ironically, these indexes, which were created to help librarians deal with the difficult question of which journals to subscribe have substantially exasperated the problem they were designed to help address. By providing a vehicle for codifying the concept of "core journals" within scholarly fields, particularly in the physical sciences, these indexes have created a situation that has allowed at least some unscrupulous publishers to raise the price of the core journals they own through the roof, in the view of some, creating the serial pricing crisis. The ten-fold spread in the average cost of journals across scholarly fields with the arts and letters at the low end and the physical sciences at the high end tends to support this hypothesis [9].

~snip~

The complete paper discusses some of the problems with "peer review" and its attendant consequences. Bottom line in my estimation, and pre-internet at least, it put way too much control into the hands of a few "publishers" of scholarly journals. In the past they had the ability to cherry pick articles that favored a particular sacred cow or "acceptable" scientist.

Now, before anyone suggests being fitted for tin foil, consider this: Evil does not wear a scarlet letter on its forehead nor does it wave a banner signalling its whereabouts or its intentions.

Given the seemingly widespread acceptance of junk science in this country, how many would argue the scientific community is not broken?

The links don't render properly from this article or from the original posted, so I at least wanted to redo some links from the bottom of the original:

RETURN TO HOME

Return to Misc. Items of Interest

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.