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.
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.