Vaccine
- Thread starter Multi Sport
- Start date
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
Thought-provoking article tangentially related to COVID
Are the largest global catastrophes self-inflicted?
Roger Pielke on The Honest Broker
Last night I had a chance to hear Richard “Harry” Harris talk about his experience as one of the rescuers of the Thai soccer team who were trapped in 2018 by seasonal flood waters in the Tham Luang cave system in north Thailand. Harris was the anesthesiologist who developed and implemented the plan to sedate the boys, strap on masks and oxygen tanks, and guide them the more than 2 kilometers underwater through the narrow cave system with no visibility. It is a remarkable story — I highly recommend the National Geographic documentary.
The Thai cave rescue has a happy ending and shows the incredible power of human ingenuity and the power of our shared commitment to each other. It also tells us that in some circumstances, proper expertise is absolutely essential to avoiding tragedy. Without the ragtag collection of spelunkers, medical professionals and technical support teams, without a doubt the boys would not have made it.
Of course, the flip side of this lesson is that in the absence of appropriate expertise, tragedy can result. How to marshal appropriate experts, providing useful advice, which is then considered in decision making is one of the central challenges of the early 21se century.
We have known this for a very long time. As Dennis Mileti and Lori Peek wrote more than 20 years ago:
Source: World Bank
You can see that global GDP steadily increased over this period, with the exception of two dips — a smaller one in 2009 associated with the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) and a larger one associated with Covid-19 in 2020. These dips are more than just squiggles on a chart — they reflect significant global catastrophes with impacts far beyond the economic.
Consider:
What is notable about these “two dips” is that they both are the result of choices that were made — or more accurately, for almost all of us, choices that were made for us by experts, perhaps with inappropriate expertise or in the absence of effective oversight and governance.
The GFC was caused in large part due to the misapplication of so-called “value-at-risk” modeling. Covid-19 may have resulted from a research-related incident or, alternatively, from poor oversight of infectious animals in a Wuhan wet market — in either case it was poor decision making.
The economic and human impacts of the GFC and Covid-19 dwarf every other catastrophe of the 21st century so far. And when we look more broadly at the catastrophes of the 21st century, we can readily identify poor decision-making and the inappropriate use of expertise as root causes, as shown in the slide below.
Given the roles played by decisions and experts in contributing to the circumstances that resulted in catastrophic outcomes, it is absolutely remarkable — stunning even — that political and scientific leaders around the world are not pounding the table demanding that we better understand how our decision making resulted in recent disasters.
Every time a plane crashes there is an international response activated under a global treaty to understand precisely the causes of that crash and what measures might be put into place to make sure that it never happens again. Why don’t we do this for disasters?
I concluded my talk today with an appeal to the many global leaders in the audience whose professional roles are to assess risks and help the world prepare for them:
Not all catastrophes can be avoided, of course, but with greater attention to on-the-ground exposures and vulnerabilities in the context of risk, we can and should do much better. But that, of course, is a choice.
Are the largest global catastrophes self-inflicted?
Roger Pielke on The Honest Broker
Last night I had a chance to hear Richard “Harry” Harris talk about his experience as one of the rescuers of the Thai soccer team who were trapped in 2018 by seasonal flood waters in the Tham Luang cave system in north Thailand. Harris was the anesthesiologist who developed and implemented the plan to sedate the boys, strap on masks and oxygen tanks, and guide them the more than 2 kilometers underwater through the narrow cave system with no visibility. It is a remarkable story — I highly recommend the National Geographic documentary.
The Thai cave rescue has a happy ending and shows the incredible power of human ingenuity and the power of our shared commitment to each other. It also tells us that in some circumstances, proper expertise is absolutely essential to avoiding tragedy. Without the ragtag collection of spelunkers, medical professionals and technical support teams, without a doubt the boys would not have made it.
Of course, the flip side of this lesson is that in the absence of appropriate expertise, tragedy can result. How to marshal appropriate experts, providing useful advice, which is then considered in decision making is one of the central challenges of the early 21se century.
We have known this for a very long time. As Dennis Mileti and Lori Peek wrote more than 20 years ago:
In my lecture today at the 2023 Aon Hazards Conference, I focus on the claim that decisions that we make and do not make are almost always the root cause of the greatest catastrophes of the 21st century. To support this claim, I showed the following figure, which displays global GDP from 1990 to present.
Source: World Bank
You can see that global GDP steadily increased over this period, with the exception of two dips — a smaller one in 2009 associated with the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) and a larger one associated with Covid-19 in 2020. These dips are more than just squiggles on a chart — they reflect significant global catastrophes with impacts far beyond the economic.
Consider:
- The GFC cost the world an estimated $4 trillion;
- As many as 50,000 excess deaths among infants across Africa resulted directly from the GFC;
- Covid-19 has so far resulted in an estimated 25 million excess deaths;
- The pandemic caused more than ~$16 trillion in economic loss.
What is notable about these “two dips” is that they both are the result of choices that were made — or more accurately, for almost all of us, choices that were made for us by experts, perhaps with inappropriate expertise or in the absence of effective oversight and governance.
The GFC was caused in large part due to the misapplication of so-called “value-at-risk” modeling. Covid-19 may have resulted from a research-related incident or, alternatively, from poor oversight of infectious animals in a Wuhan wet market — in either case it was poor decision making.
The economic and human impacts of the GFC and Covid-19 dwarf every other catastrophe of the 21st century so far. And when we look more broadly at the catastrophes of the 21st century, we can readily identify poor decision-making and the inappropriate use of expertise as root causes, as shown in the slide below.
 |
Every time a plane crashes there is an international response activated under a global treaty to understand precisely the causes of that crash and what measures might be put into place to make sure that it never happens again. Why don’t we do this for disasters?
I concluded my talk today with an appeal to the many global leaders in the audience whose professional roles are to assess risks and help the world prepare for them:
We learned (again) a few weeks ago in the Libyan flood disaster that exposure and vulnerability to loss is often known (by someone) in advance of the disaster. In that case it was failing infrastructure that was not upkept, resulting in dam failures with catastrophic consequences. It was not the lack of knowledge that caused the disaster, but the lack of institutional capacity to turn that knowledge into effective decision making.
Not all catastrophes can be avoided, of course, but with greater attention to on-the-ground exposures and vulnerabilities in the context of risk, we can and should do much better. But that, of course, is a choice.
The biggest issue is experts (or reliance on experts), not that they're necessarily not qualified in their field, but experts will typically have a myopic, or limited, view because they've been trained within the constraints of their subject matter. Compounding the problem is the fact that many of these so-called experts, were trained in a academic, and/or controlled, environment. They don't have the real world experience to consider, or comprehend, the economic, social, medical etc impacts of their scientific recommendations. Covid is the perfect case study.Thought-provoking article tangentially related to COVID
Are the largest global catastrophes self-inflicted?
Roger Pielke on The Honest Broker
Last night I had a chance to hear Richard “Harry” Harris talk about his experience as one of the rescuers of the Thai soccer team who were trapped in 2018 by seasonal flood waters in the Tham Luang cave system in north Thailand. Harris was the anesthesiologist who developed and implemented the plan to sedate the boys, strap on masks and oxygen tanks, and guide them the more than 2 kilometers underwater through the narrow cave system with no visibility. It is a remarkable story — I highly recommend the National Geographic documentary.
The Thai cave rescue has a happy ending and shows the incredible power of human ingenuity and the power of our shared commitment to each other. It also tells us that in some circumstances, proper expertise is absolutely essential to avoiding tragedy. Without the ragtag collection of spelunkers, medical professionals and technical support teams, without a doubt the boys would not have made it.
Of course, the flip side of this lesson is that in the absence of appropriate expertise, tragedy can result. How to marshal appropriate experts, providing useful advice, which is then considered in decision making is one of the central challenges of the early 21se century.
We have known this for a very long time. As Dennis Mileti and Lori Peek wrote more than 20 years ago:
In my lecture today at the 2023 Aon Hazards Conference, I focus on the claim that decisions that we make and do not make are almost always the root cause of the greatest catastrophes of the 21st century. To support this claim, I showed the following figure, which displays global GDP from 1990 to present.
View attachment 18679
Source: World Bank
You can see that global GDP steadily increased over this period, with the exception of two dips — a smaller one in 2009 associated with the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) and a larger one associated with Covid-19 in 2020. These dips are more than just squiggles on a chart — they reflect significant global catastrophes with impacts far beyond the economic.
Consider:
The precise magnitude of these numbers is less important than the fact that they are huge, with profound consequences across the world, touching almost every person on the planet.
- The GFC cost the world an estimated $4 trillion;
- As many as 50,000 excess deaths among infants across Africa resulted directly from the GFC;
- Covid-19 has so far resulted in an estimated 25 million excess deaths;
- The pandemic caused more than ~$16 trillion in economic loss.
What is notable about these “two dips” is that they both are the result of choices that were made — or more accurately, for almost all of us, choices that were made for us by experts, perhaps with inappropriate expertise or in the absence of effective oversight and governance.
The GFC was caused in large part due to the misapplication of so-called “value-at-risk” modeling. Covid-19 may have resulted from a research-related incident or, alternatively, from poor oversight of infectious animals in a Wuhan wet market — in either case it was poor decision making.
The economic and human impacts of the GFC and Covid-19 dwarf every other catastrophe of the 21st century so far. And when we look more broadly at the catastrophes of the 21st century, we can readily identify poor decision-making and the inappropriate use of expertise as root causes, as shown in the slide below.
Given the roles played by decisions and experts in contributing to the circumstances that resulted in catastrophic outcomes, it is absolutely remarkable — stunning even — that political and scientific leaders around the world are not pounding the table demanding that we better understand how our decision making resulted in recent disasters.
Every time a plane crashes there is an international response activated under a global treaty to understand precisely the causes of that crash and what measures might be put into place to make sure that it never happens again. Why don’t we do this for disasters?
I concluded my talk today with an appeal to the many global leaders in the audience whose professional roles are to assess risks and help the world prepare for them:
We learned (again) a few weeks ago in the Libyan flood disaster that exposure and vulnerability to loss is often known (by someone) in advance of the disaster. In that case it was failing infrastructure that was not upkept, resulting in dam failures with catastrophic consequences. It was not the lack of knowledge that caused the disaster, but the lack of institutional capacity to turn that knowledge into effective decision making.
Not all catastrophes can be avoided, of course, but with greater attention to on-the-ground exposures and vulnerabilities in the context of risk, we can and should do much better. But that, of course, is a choice.
Combine that with the fact that everything has become political (most concerning being science) and yeah, we're victims of our own bad decisions.
“General Hospital” Actor Tyler Christopher Dead at 50: 'A Sweet Soul and Wonderful Friend'
Paula Smith, the wife of Christopher's GH costar Maurice Benard, confirmed the actor's death on Instagram.
"It is with great sadness that we share the news of the passing of Tyler Christopher," he wrote. "Tyler passed away this morning following a cardiac event in his San Diego apartment."
Paula Smith, the wife of Christopher's GH costar Maurice Benard, confirmed the actor's death on Instagram.
"It is with great sadness that we share the news of the passing of Tyler Christopher," he wrote. "Tyler passed away this morning following a cardiac event in his San Diego apartment."
Happened again
SILVER ELITE
Add in $$$ influence and the perfect storm was created. Imagine creating a product that gets immediete worldwide traction. And the product developed is strongly linked to to 5 bad things at once that would normally disqualify the product...but yet passes with flying colors and goes to market. And, and, becomes mandated. Genius.
and its greatest salespersons were our politicians and local governments.
Don't forget the boosters too and their residual income. Big pharma cashed in and now is collecting residuals from all their zombies. They've engineered covid to become another flu. Meaning it's here to stay and you must be taking your boosters every few months to stay on top of the evolving and changing virus. What a business.... $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Big ad campaign by Pfizer, "Two Things at Once" encouraging people to get flu shot and covid booster at same time. Unfortunately, the powers that be didn't treat it like the flu during the pandemic, instead they treated it like the black plague. The vast majority of the public have rejected the boosters.
Vaccine data shows rates for latest COVID-19 booster is 'abysmal', only 7 percent of U.S. adults with shot
More than a month after federal officials recommended a new version of the COVID-19 vaccines, 7% of U.S. adults and 2% of children have gotten a shot. One expert calls the numbers “abysmal.”
www.pbs.org
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
We also have celebrity experts that the MSM loves to quote because they promote the MSM narrative - Osterholm and Krugman come to mind - reality be damned. This provides both a default outlook to those wed to the MSM and a source of authority if questioned. I'd argue though that the biggest issue is one that pervades all facets of our life now - ignoring, censoring, defunding, and attacking the integrity of those who go against the narrative.
The really bad news for those who still believe in "the truth" versus "your truth" is the current structure of how research articles get published. I'll provide an overview that lays it all out by CNN .. or was it the NY Times? Hahaha. You know I'm joking. It's not either.
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
The Honest Broker
A brilliant essay by Jessica Weinkle on the business of scientific publishing and how it warps science. Have a read, and I recommend subscribing to her Substack, Conflicted.
Don't hate the player, hate the game
On Patrick Brown, Science Wars, and the Academic Publishing Business
In a remarkable essay at The Free Press, Patrick Brown, a researcher at The Breakthrough Institute, gave the world a lesson on how the sausage is made in headline stirring climate change science. Start the research with the publication outlet end in mind.
The editorial practices of elite academic journals such as Nature, matter for how society understands the state of knowledge and how we relate to the world. On occasion matters arise that bring attention to the fraught activity of gatekeeping at the journal and its broader family of journals.
For instance, in the late 1980’s, Nature, published a research article under the condition that the journal could send investigators to the lab to review the researchers’ methods. The investigating team included the journal’s editor, a peer- reviewer with a negative opinion of the work, and “The Amazing Randi,” an illusionist leader of the “skeptical movement.”
Finding the lab’s methods questionable, Nature issued a report refuting the researcher’s findings. Reflecting on the controversy one scientist commented that the matter gives,
Far more recently, Nature’s editorial process has been shown to be malleable to external pressure. FOIA investigation into policymaker communications about the potential lab origins of COVID-19, reveal serious problems in authors misrepresenting the state of knowledge and pressure from political interests on the Editor in Chief, Magdalena Skipper.
These examples are egregious diversions from ethical publication practices. They also make plain the social underpinnings of knowledge production.
The 1990’s Science Wars was a highbrow conflict between positivists and relativists. Positivists working from the lens of an objective truth obtainable stepwise through the scientific method. Relativists worked from the lens that people make meaning of things including science through their values, culture, worldview, and relationships.
One of the biggest points of contention was to what extent knowledge is a product of the social forces on the people conducting research. The implication then as now is that scientific authority has limits. Science neither marches linearly towards absolute truth, nor can it resolve social value disputes.
People do science was an important takeaway.
The debate tended to navel gaze: are facts real? The more practically minded argued that it matters little whether or not an atom is real or a social construct, or both. To the extent that our understanding of atoms gives us nuclear weapons, plastics, and pharmaceuticals- they are real enough.
And in any case, those involved with science policy since WWII knew perfectly well that science was a product of social forces. The public held the pen for government funded research. Research programs were developed not by epiphany and good fortune, but by fierce direct and indirect lobbying.
<cont>
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
<p. 2>
The late Canadian philosopher Ian Hacking had quite enough of the science wars. He quipped, “Why ask what?” from which he argued the purpose of deconstructing the social underpinnings of science was to enable a higher consciousness and empower people to intervene in the knowledge production process to improve our lot.
Hacking illustrated particular concern for individuals in society. The ways researchers defined things- mental illness and child abuse, for example- mattered for how people understood their own lived experience. But, society could also have profound effects on how researchers understood the thing they looked to study. According to Hacking, revolt against researcher explanations of autism by families with autistic children led to a thorough scientific reconceptualization of the autism condition to more readily reflect family experience.
What follows then is the opportunity for society to shape knowledge production towards the development of socially acceptable technologies to help resolve real world problems.
The most notable intervening in the production of science however, has not been towards finding better ways forward and enlightening our personal experiences. Powerful policy advocates have descended on the research enterprise as an engine of political gain.
In 1997, marine biologist Jane Lubchenco, then president of the professional organization, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), called on scientists for a new ‘social contract’ between science and society. While the old social contract developed post WWII promised societal benefit through technological innovation the new social contract would situate researchers as active participants in the political process.
Lubchenco moved on to an illustrious career in the revolving door between the executive branch, scientific research, and advocacy organizations. As part of the quest for scientists to communicate research to influence policy development (i.e. advocacy), she joined several other elite researcher advocacy notables (an examination of which could fill its own volume) to found the research advocacy organization, Climate Central. The express purpose of Climate Central is to put climate change research into mainstream media to mobilize policy change.
Of its claims to fame, leaders at Climate Central inspired the development of weather event attribution science birthing the field as the love child of climate change advocates and media. It was designed specifically to provide fodder in environmental litigation and to sway the court of public opinion through the development of sensational media headlines. The academic and policy merits of the research is, purposefully, an afterthought.
Academic journals find themselves in this deep confluence of politics and science which is apparently not so bad for business. And to be sure, academic publishing is a lucrative business estimated to have total global revenues over $23 billion.
Mark Zuckerberg, King of Clicks, explains that what gets attention online is sensational information. In debating the line between allowable online content and that which is forbidden,
In turn, as Brown argues, what gets you into prestigious journals isn’t necessarily the value of the research towards making progress in resolving social ills. What often gets you in, is how easily research findings can be turned into clickbait. That’s the business.
But let us not forget that outside of the most elite players and organizations, researchers are doing the daily grind like anyone else. They simply need to get, keep, and advance in their job all while juggling family and personal care.
Academic publishing underpins knowledge claims and are important components of systems of prestige. Publication has long mattered for academic career advancement. As universities have (for better and worse) moved increasingly to a business-like mindset, so too have researchers been pushed for more research and more prestigious research.
The business of academic publishers are now the gatekeepers of researcher career advancement.
Much of what we think about when we consider academic publishing reflects an era long gone. Academic publishing originated in the practices of ‘learned societies’ where individuals shared research findings and ideas amongst themselves within a discipline and with no expectation of making money through publication itself.
Post WWII though academic publishing became intensely commercialized. Today, the industry may also be regarded as the “‘scholarly journal branding’ market.”
In a discussion paper about the entanglement of commercial publishing, academic prestige the circulation of research, Aileen Fyfe and colleagues summarize the significance of major publishers entering the academic publishing space,
The late Canadian philosopher Ian Hacking had quite enough of the science wars. He quipped, “Why ask what?” from which he argued the purpose of deconstructing the social underpinnings of science was to enable a higher consciousness and empower people to intervene in the knowledge production process to improve our lot.
Hacking illustrated particular concern for individuals in society. The ways researchers defined things- mental illness and child abuse, for example- mattered for how people understood their own lived experience. But, society could also have profound effects on how researchers understood the thing they looked to study. According to Hacking, revolt against researcher explanations of autism by families with autistic children led to a thorough scientific reconceptualization of the autism condition to more readily reflect family experience.
What follows then is the opportunity for society to shape knowledge production towards the development of socially acceptable technologies to help resolve real world problems.
The most notable intervening in the production of science however, has not been towards finding better ways forward and enlightening our personal experiences. Powerful policy advocates have descended on the research enterprise as an engine of political gain.
In 1997, marine biologist Jane Lubchenco, then president of the professional organization, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), called on scientists for a new ‘social contract’ between science and society. While the old social contract developed post WWII promised societal benefit through technological innovation the new social contract would situate researchers as active participants in the political process.
Lubchenco moved on to an illustrious career in the revolving door between the executive branch, scientific research, and advocacy organizations. As part of the quest for scientists to communicate research to influence policy development (i.e. advocacy), she joined several other elite researcher advocacy notables (an examination of which could fill its own volume) to found the research advocacy organization, Climate Central. The express purpose of Climate Central is to put climate change research into mainstream media to mobilize policy change.
Of its claims to fame, leaders at Climate Central inspired the development of weather event attribution science birthing the field as the love child of climate change advocates and media. It was designed specifically to provide fodder in environmental litigation and to sway the court of public opinion through the development of sensational media headlines. The academic and policy merits of the research is, purposefully, an afterthought.
Academic journals find themselves in this deep confluence of politics and science which is apparently not so bad for business. And to be sure, academic publishing is a lucrative business estimated to have total global revenues over $23 billion.
Mark Zuckerberg, King of Clicks, explains that what gets attention online is sensational information. In debating the line between allowable online content and that which is forbidden,
And so, it should not be surprising that academic journals prioritize publication of that which grabs attention in media headlines.
In turn, as Brown argues, what gets you into prestigious journals isn’t necessarily the value of the research towards making progress in resolving social ills. What often gets you in, is how easily research findings can be turned into clickbait. That’s the business.
But let us not forget that outside of the most elite players and organizations, researchers are doing the daily grind like anyone else. They simply need to get, keep, and advance in their job all while juggling family and personal care.
Academic publishing underpins knowledge claims and are important components of systems of prestige. Publication has long mattered for academic career advancement. As universities have (for better and worse) moved increasingly to a business-like mindset, so too have researchers been pushed for more research and more prestigious research.
The business of academic publishers are now the gatekeepers of researcher career advancement.
Much of what we think about when we consider academic publishing reflects an era long gone. Academic publishing originated in the practices of ‘learned societies’ where individuals shared research findings and ideas amongst themselves within a discipline and with no expectation of making money through publication itself.
Post WWII though academic publishing became intensely commercialized. Today, the industry may also be regarded as the “‘scholarly journal branding’ market.”
In a discussion paper about the entanglement of commercial publishing, academic prestige the circulation of research, Aileen Fyfe and colleagues summarize the significance of major publishers entering the academic publishing space,
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
<p. 3>
Today’s major academic publishers are media behemoths intensely focused on turning profit. SpringerNature, the publisher of Nature, has looked to become a publicly traded company at least three times.
In a fascinating account of SpringerNature’s failed IPOs, Jaime Teizeira da Silva and Yves Fassin reflected that it “highlights the competitive nature of the commercial publishing landscape in a non-profit academic environment.”
They conclude,
Researchers
trace the roots of issues in reproducibility, fraud, and homophily to rhetorics of excellence. In effect, once a practice, group, or a journal outlet becomes “excellent” any deviation from that standard is viewed as sub-par.
To wit, Myanna Lahsen and Esther Turnhout, show how the quest for excellence has rendered environmental science stale. An unwillingness to entertain change has left the whole field with no hope of actually aiding in achieving environmental sustainability,
What distinguishes academic journal publication from publication in other outlets is the use of peer reviewers. As any university student will tell you peer review distinguishes credible research from any other ol’ thing.
But this was not always so.
Until the Cold War that peer review came to mark a piece of work as scientifically legitimate. It was not until 1973, that Nature had made peer review a requirement for all the papers it published. Even still editors maintain a great deal of discretion on what was published.
Peer review is not regarded very highly by the many that have to go through it. Today, many researchers will share that peer review is simply broken. It does not mean much more than 2-4 other people looked over the work and didn’t lament any problems the editor deemed too serious.
Is peer review important? Yes. Is it what it is made out to be in the public sphere as an assurance of significance, truth, and progress? Not at all.
And this is where Patrick Brown walks into the conversation. With expertise in extreme weather attribution science and publishing in high powered journals, Brown succinctly outlined the whole racket step by step.
The worse offense, and Brown’s overarching point, is that this entire scheme from politicized science to the business of publishing does little to nothing to improve society’s ability to advance towards its publicly stated value goals.
Is his high powered published research scientifically valid, excellent, and accurate? Absolutely.
Is it helpful? Meh.
Rancor and frenzy followed his essay.
Famous climate scientists drummed up online outrage denigrating Brown and attacking his research ethics. Media outlets shifted the framing of his work painting him in the worst light possible. So much controversy erupted that Nature’s editor (still M. Skipper) appears to be considering a retracting of the paper.
Brown clearly touched a nerve. But why?
In the long ago words of TS Kuhn, Brown is threatening a scientific revolution. By articulating the structure of knowledge production the underlying belief system and motivations, by outlining a how-to, he shows how the game is played.
Brown makes it difficult to ignore the decades worth of abundant observations that mainstream climate change science is not just politicized, it is big business. And elite journals are in on it.
Today’s major academic publishers are media behemoths intensely focused on turning profit. SpringerNature, the publisher of Nature, has looked to become a publicly traded company at least three times.
In a fascinating account of SpringerNature’s failed IPOs, Jaime Teizeira da Silva and Yves Fassin reflected that it “highlights the competitive nature of the commercial publishing landscape in a non-profit academic environment.”
They conclude,
Meanwhile, chasing “excellence” in research is found out as simply bad for research.
Researchers
trace the roots of issues in reproducibility, fraud, and homophily to rhetorics of excellence. In effect, once a practice, group, or a journal outlet becomes “excellent” any deviation from that standard is viewed as sub-par.
To wit, Myanna Lahsen and Esther Turnhout, show how the quest for excellence has rendered environmental science stale. An unwillingness to entertain change has left the whole field with no hope of actually aiding in achieving environmental sustainability,
Chasing excellence keeps everyone humdrum and producing not so interesting things that make good headlines. But it also keeps them employed and their prestige value growing.
What distinguishes academic journal publication from publication in other outlets is the use of peer reviewers. As any university student will tell you peer review distinguishes credible research from any other ol’ thing.
But this was not always so.
Until the Cold War that peer review came to mark a piece of work as scientifically legitimate. It was not until 1973, that Nature had made peer review a requirement for all the papers it published. Even still editors maintain a great deal of discretion on what was published.
Peer review is not regarded very highly by the many that have to go through it. Today, many researchers will share that peer review is simply broken. It does not mean much more than 2-4 other people looked over the work and didn’t lament any problems the editor deemed too serious.
Is peer review important? Yes. Is it what it is made out to be in the public sphere as an assurance of significance, truth, and progress? Not at all.
And this is where Patrick Brown walks into the conversation. With expertise in extreme weather attribution science and publishing in high powered journals, Brown succinctly outlined the whole racket step by step.
The worse offense, and Brown’s overarching point, is that this entire scheme from politicized science to the business of publishing does little to nothing to improve society’s ability to advance towards its publicly stated value goals.
Is his high powered published research scientifically valid, excellent, and accurate? Absolutely.
Is it helpful? Meh.
Rancor and frenzy followed his essay.
Famous climate scientists drummed up online outrage denigrating Brown and attacking his research ethics. Media outlets shifted the framing of his work painting him in the worst light possible. So much controversy erupted that Nature’s editor (still M. Skipper) appears to be considering a retracting of the paper.
Brown clearly touched a nerve. But why?
In the long ago words of TS Kuhn, Brown is threatening a scientific revolution. By articulating the structure of knowledge production the underlying belief system and motivations, by outlining a how-to, he shows how the game is played.
Brown makes it difficult to ignore the decades worth of abundant observations that mainstream climate change science is not just politicized, it is big business. And elite journals are in on it.
I got internet Espola.....lol. I'm vising Guatemala right now and they also got tricked. 100% worldwide scam that ended for some with death or adverse reaction. Thanks Dad, Espola and Husker Du for supporting and preaching deadly information.
Add Dad, Espola, Copa, Evil Goalie, EOTL, Surf Futbol, Husker DU, Tenacious, the doctors and of course our wonderful teachers who pushed this shit. They were bought so they had to obey and push poison. Horrible what people did. The worst part, they mocked and destroyed my way of life, all for warning you all to say, "no!!! I tried so hard to warn all of you.
A torpedo hit my small businesses in March 2020, and I never recovered. Assholes like Dad told me to obey or face the consequences. Well, I am facing my decisions and so are the ones who took the death jab. No one wins but the bankers, media, Big Pharma and those who love to lie, cheat and start wars to make money.
They had to pay actors and sports figures to promote a non-approved FDA drug, let that sink in.