The House of Commons is having a "links day" in which MPs will get together with scientists to discuss the issue of trust in science. Mark Walport and Paul Nurse will be speaking. I've been following the tweets on the #linksday2014 hashtag and they are a mixed bunch so far.
For example, we learn that Nicola Gulley, the editorial director of the Institute of Physics opined that:
...peer review key to maintaining trust in science. No crisis but a lack of understanding of this process.
You can see why someone working in the peer-reviewed journal sector might be keen on peer reviewed science, but for many readers at BH and many others uninvolved with the climate debate, peer review - its ineffectiveness, the superficial aura of "correctness" it gives, and the problem of gatekeeping - are the source of mistrust in science not a solution to it.
On the other hand Mark Walport has apparently been emphasising that science is only one input into the policy process, which is undoubtedly true and a rebuke to the scientivists and activists who constantly criticise politicians for "ignoring" scientists.
When you think about it, there's a link between these two themes. As we know, the peer reviewed evidence demonstrates conclusively that peer review is virtually useless at finding error and fraud (see discussion in The Hockey Stick Illusion). Clearly then, those advocating use of peer reviewed science in the policymaking process must be incorporating non-peer-reviewed elements into their thinking in order to overcome the peer-reviewed evidence that peer-reviewed evidence is no better than non-peer-reviewed evidence.
I'm not sure what conclusions we should draw from this though.
Paul Nurse is currently speaking at the event. Somewhat predictably he is still airing his GWPF conspiracy theories, as revealed in a tweet by James Wilsdon:
Paul Nurse warns against taking science advice from “shadowy organisations who refuse to declare their funders.”
Readers will recall the Met Office's scientific advice to Parliament: first telling them that recent changes in global mean surface temperature were statistically significant and then, when pressed for their calculations, prevaricating, then confessing that the changes were not statistically significant and then without apparently batting an eyelid claiming that they did not rely on such statistical analyses.
No doubt these are the kinds of people that Sir Paul feels should be giving scientific advice to politicians.
Article originally appeared on (http://www.bishop-hill.net/).
See website for complete article licensing information.
Bishop Hill