Letter: Derided science

Sir John Knill
Thursday 27 May 1999 23:02 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Derided science

Sir: Steve Connor's statement that "science is science only when it is published in a reputable scientific journal" as placed within the context of peer review ("When science facts become science fiction", 22 May) has become something of an elitist mantra in recent months and deserves to be challenged.

Peer review is a process of anonymous evaluation generally used to assist in the prioritisation, in an environment of limited resources, of scientific grant applications, and in the selection of papers for publication. Peer review is not an absolute process by which a defining line can be drawn between science and non-science. It would be absurd to suggest that a rejected alpha-rated research grant application, or a leading-edge keynote address at an international conference is, somehow, not science.

Many scientists who work for their living in the real world rarely aspire, or even need, to publish their scientific contributions in scientific journals. Nevertheless the results of their work are likely to be subject to proper scrutiny by a variety of careful processes, albeit not through peer review.

Too often this salt-of-the-earth science, essential to underpinning our national economy, quality of life and safety, is derided in circles that should know better.

Sir JOHN KNILL

Shaw, Berkshire

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in