Someone cares? Conceivably. Get this:
Blind trust in unblinded observation in Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior
We surveyed 492 recent studies in the fields of ecology, evolution, and behavior (EEB) to evaluate potential for observer bias and the need for blind experimentation in each study. While 248 articles included experiments that could have been influenced by observer bias, only 13.3% of these articles indicated that experiments were blinded. The use of blind observation therefore was either grossly underreported in the surveyed articles, or many EEB studies were not blinded. We hope that a concerted effort of the field of EEB—including researchers, peer-reviewers, and journal editors—will help promote and institute routine, blind observation as an essential standard that should be practiced by all sciences. – Melissa R. Kardish et al. Ecol. Evol., 19 May 2015 | http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2015.00051
The .pdf is free.
Whoo-za! We hadn’t realized that anybody but us had noticed the potential for French-for-fertilizer.
So … is all Darwinbabble just French-for-fertilizer?
We don’t mean to be rude, but isn’t it time to have a serious talk about this question? What is the value of the investment in Darwin?
It’ll probably all blow over after a bit of handwringing. It’s a legally protected racket in many places.
Follow UD News at Twitter!