Gives new meaning to "politically correct."
The chairman of the House Science Committee on Tuesday defended his controversial draft legislation that would subject the National Science Foundation's peer review process to politics as necessary to "improve" science.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) floated a proposal last week that would require the U.S. agency that supports non-medical research to certify that its grants were only funding research that is groundbreaking, important, and original. Legitimate scientists said those conditions can't be guaranteed and contradict basic scientific method.
The legislative proposal came with a letter to the National Science Foundation requesting that the scientists turn over to politicians the technical details of the peer review process for five grants that fund social science research that Smith deemed questionable. It prompted a sharp written response from the lead Democrat on the science committee, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), who slammed the request and the draft legislation as an unprecedented political foray into perhaps the world's preeminent sponsor of scientific research.
The draft legislation and letters were obtained and published by The Huffington Post and the ScienceInsider, apparently prompting Smith to defend the bill and to accuse Democrats of playing politics.The Huffington Post
Lamar Smith: Science Peer Review Process Would 'Improve' With Political Oversight
Michael McAuliff
Unbelievable twisting of perspective.
ReplyDeleteIt's always true that peer review improves with the breadth of feedback sampled. After all, EVERY process is too important to be left to the presumed process owners.
This suggestion, however, ignores all sense of priority. The inverse of their premise is far more relevant.
Politics would improve with more peer feedback. After all, that's what "representation" means.