- Bishop Hill blog

The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee have started to publish the submissions of evidence on their website.

A number of familiar names are there, and I'll try to read these when I get a chance:

Philip Campbell, the editor of Nature who had to resign from the Russell inquiry after prejudging the findings (not to mention his conflict of interest)
Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet, who replaced Campbell and whose advice was ignored where Russell found in convenient to do so
Michael Kelly, of the Oxburgh panel, whose observations on the indequacies of CRU's work was not reported by Oxburgh
Nic Lewis, of O'Donnell et al fame
Prominent sceptics, McLean, de Freitas and Carter

There are also two from UEA and one each from the big learned societies, including the Royal Society.

Update on Mar 17, 2011 by

Bishop Hill

Richard Horton's evidence includes this:

Peer review is a central issue in many scientific controversies and disputes today. Take climate change. In the Times Higher Education , last year, Andrew Montford, author of The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science (1), argued that events at the Climatic Research Centre (UK) at the University of East Anglia (CRU) had far-reaching implications for the world of scientific peer review and publishing (2). His charge sheet was sharp and precise: that scientists undermined the peer-review process. Implicit in Montford's argument is that peer review is critical to the process of – and thereby public trust in – science. Writing in The Guardian , George Monbiot put it this way: "science happens to be [a] closed world with one of the most effective forms of self-regulation: the peer review process."(3). But for many of us who do peer review, this "most effective" form of self-regulation is often misunderstood and misrepresented.