Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Science media have strange standards for assessing corruption…

arroba Email

Alex Berezow, a microbiologist turned science writer, got a promising piece in Science rejected on grounds so bogus that they resemble the grounds used to turn down credible research pieces by ID sympathizers:

The journal Science publishes a weekly column in which scientists write about various challenges they have faced in their careers. I submitted my story about how I became a junk science debunker, and it was initially accepted for publication.

Yet, after two months of work and nine revisions, the column (which now can be read here) was spiked at the last minute by senior editor Tim Appenzeller. Mr. Appenzeller, who holds a bachelor’s degree in English and has no formal training in science, heads up the news division at the journal. I was told that ACSH is controversial “because it has accepted money from corporations,” and therefore, Science refused to publish my article. (See story here.)

Of course, Science publishes papers from industry scientists and gleefully begs corporations to send them money, so I had a few questions of my own that I submitted to Mr. Appenzeller…

Alex Berezow, “Editor At Journal ‘Science’ Doubles Down On Double Standard” at American Council on Science and Heath

You probably suspect what is coming next but read on…

Funny, we so often turn to American Council on Science and Health for a breath of fresh air… But then, establishment science media make up in virtuous unction for what they lack in integrity.

And Berezow goes on to add something very significant: “The scientific publishing industry is thoroughly corrupt, and AAAS and Science are now also a part of the problem. If and when all government-funded research is mandated to be released free of charge upon publication, journals like Science may go out of business. Good riddance.”

Before the internet, charging a fee for science papers was based on the actual per capita costs of providing the information to more readers. Today, there is no significant increase in cost, certainly not an increase that could not be easily borne by the original funding process.

It’s a good question whether the reluctance to make all publicly funded research open-access is now based precisely on the need to fund the social posturing of current science journals—whose position is fatally undermined by the internet.

Interesting his response to the "allegations (on which we have no position) that some of its [the ACSH's] positions reflect the interests of its funders" doesn't provide an explanation for why it's wrong. It just says that they are lies and distortions, and the ACSH are pro-science. There isn't anything saying that their funders take positions X, Y, and Z, and the ACSH has taken different positions on these topics. Bob O'H
Not dissimilar, in principle, to the question the courtiers must have been mulling over, when the wee laddie proclaimed that his August Highness, the Emperor, didn't have any clothes on. Axel

Leave a Reply