Comments on: With friends like this…

By: John H.

John H. — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 09:34:31 +0000

If scientists want people at least to try to understand their work, they should raise a full-scale revolt against the journals which publish them. It is no longer acceptable for the guardians of knowledge to behave like 19th-Century gamekeepers, chasing the proles out of the grand estates.

Has Monbiot ever heard of open access publishing? Why should journal houses be so restrictive in sharing research – to make buckets of money while scientists scrounge around for funds and grants. Elsevier is shocking and the price hikes causes librarians to stop ordering, scientists started open access mostly at their own expense(it costs to publish under open access but at least the information is freely available). IP laws needs to be seriously re-examined because these are stifling research. If you don’t believe me , just do some searching in biomedicine and see how many “patent pendings” emerge. This is just big business cornering an area of research, it has nothing to do with science or technology. Patents should apply to products made, not products proposed.

BTW, there are studies showing that some GM foods could be toxic, you just don’t hear about these unless you go looking. I’m not against GM food but I am definitely skeptical of the claim that these are safe.

By: dover_beach

dover_beach — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 08:06:44 +0000

the ex never been Nobel laureate and Thatcher advisor

That would mean he is an Nobel laureate.

By: rog

rog — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 07:52:24 +0000

One ‘war on science’ is being led by that bug eyed fraudster Monckton, the ex never been Nobel laureate and Thatcher advisor

By: Sinclair Davidson

Sinclair Davidson — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 07:51:29 +0000

so you say…

By: rog

rog — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 07:49:37 +0000

Sinclair, you say that you are “very suspicious of industry codes of practice – they usually facilitate collusion against the consumer.”

Just what does this bullshit mean? Most codes of practice are designed to protect the consumer from industry.

Eg building codes

By: Chumpai

Chumpai — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 05:11:52 +0000

I’m an immunologist at an academic institution and its true that if we don’t have a subscription with a particular journal then $30 is the least you can expect to pay, usually more like $50 or $60.

However, there are online open-access publishers like Plos and BioMed Central that I believe are open to the public.

By: Fleeced

Fleeced — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 02:58:23 +0000

dd – don’t forget nuclear energy… and how lefties often favour “alternative medicine”.

The fact is, they try and take the high-ground as rational scientific thinkers, but ultimately they just support stuff that conforms to their self-loathing world-view that we only ever make things worse. It’s odd how “propgressives” are so anti-progress.

By: TerjeP (say Tay-a)

TerjeP (say Tay-a) — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 02:13:29 +0000

I think the journals are ripe for a fall. In an Internet age the idea that paper is so expensive that only the best can be published is silly. The industry is over due in moving to a model where much more is published and peer review happens transparently afterwards by large numbers in the field, rather than a select few. For this wikipedia isn’t the right model put it points in the right direction.

By: ken n

ken n — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:55:13 +0000

“There is one question that no one who denies manmade climate change wants to answer: what would it take to persuade you?”

This is a question every used car salesman knows and uses. Not worthy of Monbiot.

By: ken n

ken n — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:54:01 +0000

* Safety of nuclear energy.