http://scienceprogress.org/2008/07/integrity-in-science-means-integrity-in-energy-policy-too/ Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:59:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://scienceprogress.org/2008/07/integrity-in-science-means-integrity-in-energy-policy-too/comment-page-1/#comment-2381 Theodore Brown Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:49:52 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/07/integrity-in-science-means-integrity-in-energy-policy-too/#comment-2381 It is certainly true that we must be vigilant to protect science from governmental interference of whatever form, but there is more to scientific integrity than that. Scientists themselves, the culture of science as a whole and within selected communities within science, determine the degree to which science itself answers to the demand for truth-seeking, disinterested and reliable knowledge. We in science know that there is a continuing need for "internal" housekeeping, vigilance against fraud, misrepresentation and unethical behavior. The public needs to know that this is important, and that mechanisms are in place to ensure the epistemic authority of science. Merely referring to long-standing practices such as peer review will no longer do the job. As a recent editorial in _Science_ points out, there are a lot of problems with peer review. All these social practices within science need constant oversight and a willingness to acknowledge when things are going awry. Finally, we should acknowledge that scientists themselves often hold strong personal opinions about scientific matters that have implications in the larger social arena, and they are not automatically able to dissociate their scientific work from those views. It is certainly true that we must be vigilant to protect science from governmental interference of whatever form, but there is more to scientific integrity than that. Scientists themselves, the culture of science as a whole and within selected communities within science, determine the degree to which science itself answers to the demand for truth-seeking, disinterested and reliable knowledge. We in science know that there is a continuing need for “internal” housekeeping, vigilance against fraud, misrepresentation and unethical behavior. The public needs to know that this is important, and that mechanisms are in place to ensure the epistemic authority of science. Merely referring to long-standing practices such as peer review will no longer do the job. As a recent editorial in _Science_ points out, there are a lot of problems with peer review. All these social practices within science need constant oversight and a willingness to acknowledge when things are going awry. Finally, we should acknowledge that scientists themselves often hold strong personal opinions about scientific matters that have implications in the larger social arena, and they are not automatically able to dissociate their scientific work from those views.

]]>