|
UK – PEER REVIEW IMPORTANCE
Making Sense of Science
22 November. Source: The Scientist, V.19, Nov. 21, 2005
http://www.the-scientist.com via AgBioView
'Peer review is the missing link for the public'
Lemon juice may help beat AIDS; genetically modified crops will create superweeds; measles vaccine may be responsible for autism; and mobile phones can cut male fertility by a third. Such questionable science claims are part of a familiar litany that outrages scientists and prompts despairing comments about the sensationalist press and the outlandish world of science and medicine on the Internet.
Unfortunately for scientists, these kinds of claims reach beyond the calm rectitude of the scientific literature. Every day, medical helpline operators, pharmacists, and doctors meet with the consequences of bad science in the public domain: worried parents, patients frightened about their treatment, and people taking ineffective remedies. Take a recent call to the Meningitis Foundation: Does gargling with lemon juice kill meningococcal bacteria?
Government representatives also report a rising caseload from misinformation and hype about alleged scientific findings. The anxiety and energy expended on campaigns such as those against mobile phone towers and incinerators are putting a new kind of pressure on representatives to delve into scientific issues and form judgments. Good science is essential for putting resources to good effect and for public health to be effective. But how is good science defined and how are all these people in the frontline supposed to help the public to distinguish which claims are scientifically grounded and which are not?
The discovery of this substantial and growing pressure on frontline informers and services came about during our work this year with medical charities, parliamentarians, local pharmacists, schools, and medical practitioners, to find the language for explaining the importance of scientific peer review. It was pressure from these groups that pushed us to turn our "Short Guide to Peer Review" into "I don't know what to believe..." - an eight-page explanation of how scientists publish their research results and why that matters.
The aim of the guide, launched this month and available at www.senseaboutscience.org, is to popularize the quality checking and rigor that begins to separate scientific work first from conjecture and then from flawed work. It suggests that the first question to be asked is "Is it published?" The guide covers the kinds of things that scientific reviewers look for - validity, significance and originality - and describes the process of scientific publishing. It also tells people how to dig a little deeper for evidence that scientific findings are published in a peer-reviewed journal.
The need to popularize peer review is a drum that we have been beating for some time in scientific circles, but scientists have been disinclined to explain peer review. Why? Well, there's certainly a fear of being seen as naive or of whitewashing a system that is not fault-proof. What's more, there's an enticing vogue abroad in professional spheres for demonstrating an awareness of your limits, perhaps in response to criticism for over-confidence or a fear of being seen as complacent. More commonly, I suspect, aspects of the system just seem boring and difficult to explain.
But the preoccupation with the horror stories of peer review among the scientific community has created a blind spot to the very big need out there. "Boring" is just wrong - you might find getting published the more tedious part of your research program, but for everyone else information about the status of research findings is as important as the findings themselves. That's the bit of information that is missing as far as many members of the public are concerned. In all the workshops, interviews and discussions that have gone into producing the guide, there has been a wholly positive response to beginning to make sense of science stories through the prism of quality checking. The interested public is much more animated about peer review than most scientists are.
The reaction to the guide has already been overwhelming. The most common response from people at the interface of society with science has been that they "didn't quite get it before." Perhaps it is not so surprising that the public is responsive on this issue. Not only are they sensitive to their own vulnerability and the vulnerability of public life to scare stories and hype, they are keen for anything that gives them an ability to sift what they read. One workshop participant described knowing about peer review as "empowering," generally a phrase I'm inclined to avoid, at a time when every bit of official paper is designed to empower. But it's truly the case that once a non-scientist gets a flavor of the process, they start to look at things with a freshly critical eye. Now that is surely something that scientists should get excited about.
A short guide to peer review
www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/peerreview/shortguide.htm
"I don't know what to believe..." is a short public guide to peer review, published by Sense About Science on 2 November 2005, 8pp.
"Is it peer reviewed?" is what Sense About Science is encouraging everyone to ask about science stories. Our new leaflet, written with input from patients, pharmacists and medical practitioners, among others, lets the public in on the arbiter of scientific quality: the peer review process.
From doctors to charity helplines, people on the front line of dealing with public concerns are frustrated by the damage and public anxiety that result from the promotion of poor or unpublished science. Time is increasingly spent trying correct misleading claims found by members of the public on the Internet and elsewhere.
"I don't know what to believe..." aims to change this by making more sectors of society familiar with what they should ask about research that worries or interests them. It equips people to inquire whether research has passed the scrutiny of other scientists and is considered valid, significant and original.
Tracey Brown, Director of Sense About Science, said “Information about the status of research results is as important as the findings themselves. We have a very serious commitment to popularising an understanding of how scientific quality is assessed. I hope that the scientific community is prepared for more questions about this from all quarters!”
The guide is being distributed through a campaign involving healthcare providers, Internet sites, helplines and local bodies, based on the ways that people pursue their concerns and interest in particular scientific developments. A website button will be available from 1st December as a link to the guide for sites with science-related content.
Download from www.senseaboutscience.org
|
