Proceeding contribution from Ian Gibson (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 15 December 2005. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Scientific Publications: Free for all?.
Scientific Publications: Free for all?
: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I suspect that most people do not understand what peer review means. They would not know a kite mark from a Chelsea football flag. It is impossible. I would recommend that the Committee thinks seriously about whether the peer review system is right. We have been using the system for a long time, and often serious criticisms are made of it, especially that one's pals referee the papers and allow them to be published. Even under the current system, that makes peer review not all that it might be. We need a proper inquiry into how to prevent falsehoods and bad papers entering the public domain. An inquiry is important also because policy is now made on evidence-based information, which has become the mantra for major policy decisions; perhaps not entirely, but it is a large feature. How many times have we heard ““good science”” or ““science-based””? I shall not go on about how often such phrases are abused. They are certainly abused by committees in the United States; the Republican party has managed to use them and has perverted information that has been properly reviewed. There is a real problem making evidence available to those who make the excellent policies that we need. We generally pick up such issues; we know what causes AIDS and what causes avian flu. We can learn an awful lot, but it is important that that information be communicated to the scientific community. Mention has been made of developing countries. During another inquiry, the Committee had an amazing trip to Malawi. We talked to academics and people working in the university system there who would welcome the opportunity of using such information. I note that a document from the Royal Society of Chemistry makes pertinent criticisms that reflect our worries; however, it also says that it would be patronising to give the developing world that sort of information. I can tell the Royal Society that it is patronising to think that the public would not want to access some of its chemical papers, particularly if they are looking to see whether a chemical has side effects on the environment and other such issues.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 440 c512WH
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- Westminster Hall
- Subjects
- Access Competition Developing countries Archives Libraries Prices Publishing Magazine press Teachers Research Science
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-05 23:25:32 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_287337
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_287337
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_287337