Letter: Derided science
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