Safe Speed Forums

We have a problem these days in as much as policy is in control of funding and funding is in control of science. Consequential bad science is being used as a foundation for policy and also to mislead the public.

We can't go back to the old ways - the world has moved on. Even if we tried to make certain bodies public again, modern management systems would still be dealing in grants contingent on results.

For the large part, I do not believe that the public, politicians nor journalists have any idea what's going on here. British science has always been top rate and well trusted. It's natural to maintain trust in that which has always been trustworthy.

But I think I may have come up with a solution. We need a Scientific Standards Authority (SSA). We might well model it on the Advertising Standards Authority with similar powers.

Scientific claims, made in the media or used to inform policy, would be subject to investigation on complaint.

Scientific information presented as a foundation for policy or quoted in the media would be subject to "tests" along these lines:

* Is the claim scientifically supportable and generally truthful?
* Is the claim properly scoped and qualified?
* Does alternative science of equal veracity suggest an opposite or alternate conclusion?
* Is the claim honest?

In time the SSA would publish a list of common claims that cannot be scientifically supported. Journalists would be expected to ensure that claims in their writing were not already discredited by SSA review process.

(In an earlier version of the idea I had hit a brick wall because the idea was to independently evaluate scientific work before publication. This amount of information is absolutely vast and cannot readily be investigated by a body of realistic size. By moving to the "output" side we have a much more realistic and manageable proposition.)

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Whatever happened to peer review?

Two modern processes that I understand have undermined peer review.

Firstly, We live in a soundbite world. Part of a conclusion from good science can be quoted out of context and used incorrectly.

Secondly, Many bodies commission their own research which is not subject to a peer review process at all. The DfT is guilty in this respect. They don't use the scientific publication process. They order a report, it is supplied to them, and they publish the results.

Also journalists in general don't have the time or perhaps even access to peer-reviewed journals.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I'm a bit worried about who would be appointed to the authority - if it is an arm of government by definition it's basically useless, and if it's a quango like the asa then it would have to be enormous, or have only a few scientists who presumably didn't specialise in enough fields to make reasonable judgements... Also, having seen a lot of scientists it would degenerate into 'camps' - picking an example off the top of my head, global warming... There would either be a 'maverick' bunch denigrating the conventional view, or far more likely, any 'alternative' ideas to the status quo would immediately be shot down, partly because the really innovative scientists would have better things to do than sit on it.

A bit like wnen I did my gap year, some of it was voluntary work at something partially affiliated with a 'university', and all the health and safety personel were just the unpopular/incompetent members of department put there to keep them away from doing anything academic.

Sure. Those concerns are very valid. I think we could reasonably hope to fix most of it with appropriate staff selections and appropriate charter conditions.

I do believe we have one hell of a problem, and any other suggestions would be highly welcome of course.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Isn't t' Bliar scrapping it?

Oh, that's the other kind of peer!

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Then again..................

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

In his new book, "State of Fear", Michael Crichton has some good suggestions:

1) Ensure that researchers are 'blind' to their funding.

2) Any research which has important policy implications should be performed by multiple, independent, research bodies.

3) The peer reviews should be published together with the research papers.

My idea is to apply the concept they use for open-source software - thousands of enthusiasts worldwide add their ha'pennysworth and debug the software, which gives us stuff like Linux.
Imagine if we did the same thing with research - the research would be published on the internet complete with all the source data, and thousands of people would then 'fine tune' it.
That way, we'd have scenarios like, for example, someone from some obscure corner of the world spots something which has escaped everyone else and says, "Hang on a moment, that bit doesn't work, for these reasons." Then that bit gets fixed and the results are about as good as they can get.

Regards
Peter

If we try and put this in the context of the DfT / TRL relationship, what on earth does it mean?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

That's sort of the Safe Speed model on a grander scale isn't it? Interesting...

But doing it won't stop less rugged forms of science will it? Sadly.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

In an ideal world the research would be carried out by an independent body (probably not the TRL) who have no idea that it's the DfT who has commissioned the research - or rather that they have been commissioned to research the causes of accidents, for example, and not simply to find as many links as they can between speed and accidents.

Regards
Peter

Probably not. But I reckon it has a chance of working a lot better than the current system.
You only have to look at the double-decker sized holes in much of the research of today. And that's research which has, presumably, passed a rigorous peer-review process.

Regards
Peter

Universities are supposed to be where independent research goes on but due to the lack of proper funding from taxation, academics just do the jobs that pay the most and give them the best RAE score. Independent research is just out of the window. Plus if research is done which upsets the governements of the day you can bet the university that had the academics that published it will get a massive cut in central funding all of a sudden. It's a rotten system full of rottten system.

Something for the pot...

We'd never be able to stop people doing bad science. But it doesn't matter if they do bad science.

Bad science only matters when it's used.

It's hundreds of times easier to look at use of science by government and press.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety