/Nexus - 0904 - New Times Magazine/pages/0046/image.png)
Page Content (OCR)
corn to central Mexico and he wrote and/or co-authored 50 books doctored the results so that in a number of cases the research and over 200 papers. He was the first archaeologist to bring an appeared to support mainstream theories while in other cases it interdisciplinary approach to this field. But he is also famous for went against them. The results will surprise mainstream scientific roposing theories that make other archaeologists and anthropolo- apologists, but not those who have proposed "unconventional" gists shudder. ideas. Mahoney found that "when the results ran contrary to the MacNeish claimed to have solid evidence that the earliest reviewer's theoretical beliefs, the procedures were berated and the uman presence in North America can be dated back 60,000 manuscript rejected". The opposite scenario occurred when the years, instead of the generally accepted 12,000-20,000 years. He —_ papers conformed to the reviewer's belief system. was also critical of what he called "the new archaeology" being Several extremely important theories have nearly slipped ractised by investigators who seem to believe they are operating through the cracks because of this bias in the peer review process. "on a higher plane, dealing with social problems", MacNeish once Edwin Krebs, the scientist who discovered what eventually was said in an interview, pointing out that you cannot tell what ancient — dubbed the "Krebs cycle", had his papers rejected initially. eople thought or believed by looking at potsherds and bones Biologist Lyn Margulis, co-author (with James Lovelock) of (Archaeology Today, no. 5, 1999). It is troubling to read the The Gaia Hypothesis, also had her seminal work in endosymbio- research papers and reports from many sis coldly brushed aside. Her theory, of today's archaeologists who will which is now completely accepted and jump at the chance to explain the part of biology textbooks, initially "spiritual consciousness" and belief could not get a hearing by the National systems of the ancients and ridicule Several extremely important Science Foundation. "I was flatly any unorthodox theories that attempt . turned down," Margulis says, "and the to explain enigmatic artifacts. theories have nearly grants officers added that I should Thomas Gold (who died in 2001) slipped through the cracks never apply again." (Boston Globe, was another "maverick" often held just . . . June 22, 1987) eyond arm's length because of his because of this bias in This brings up the issue of funding unconventional research into exotic the peer review process. and how the established system further ideas that no one else has thought of, yet his assertions have usually been roven to be true. He did pioneering maintains the status quo. Both McNeish and Gold made reference to the fact that they had extreme work on radar during World War II; difficulties getting their new theories or came out of the war and published a new projects funded because they were so theory on mammalian hearing that was ignored for 30 years; was controversial. This is not some cloak-and-dagger conspiracy. It the first to propose that the Moon's surface was not frozen lava _ is a much subtler and more insidious kind—a silent, invisible, ut dust; and discovered the pulsar. One of Gold's controversial complex system that tries to maintain itself by guaranteeing theories is based on the idea that most of Earth's biological life is certain outcomes and filtering out everything else. It is a system actually beneath the surface and not above it. He also believed that can choke off research into novel ideas and fields, simply by that petroleum is not a by-product of biological decay but is a _ shutting off the funding valve. result of geochemical processes within the planet's core. Some iologists and geologists have been deeply offended by these con- | SCIENTISTS PLAY HARDBALL cepts; some actually hate the man. That is the passive side of how new ideas are often suppressed, Gold wrote an article, "New Ideas in Science", that appeared in but, as we have seen, there is a very active, aggressive side that the Journal of Scientific Exploration in 1989 (vol. 3, no. 2). After seeks to throttle open intellectual discourse. framing the correct scientific attitude and expressing his concern Brian Martin wrote an article titled "Intellectual Suppression: that science was heading down the wrong path towards a system why environmental scientists are afraid to speak out", which was that stifled discovery, he stated: published in Habitat Australia (no. 7, 1992). He began the piece I want to discuss this danger and the various tendencies that by posing several scenarios that involved public risk that put the seem to me to create it, or augment it. I can draw on my own scientist in a dilemma. Should he speak up and inform people and personal experience of 40 years of work on various branches risk his career, or keep quiet? Martin presented the ways in which of science and also on many of the great controversies that the voice of truth could be stifled: have occurred over that same period. But what if the "responsible authorities" have different prior- thla fae tha nenhlam? Tn thasa lan nw Several extremely important theories have nearly slipped through the cracks because of this bias in the peer review process. SCIENTISTS PLAY HARDBALL That is the passive side of how new ideas are often suppressed, but, as we have seen, there is a very active, aggressive side that seeks to throttle open intellectual discourse. Brian Martin wrote an article titled "Intellectual Suppression: why environmental scientists are afraid to speak out", which was published in Habitat Australia (no. 7, 1992). He began the piece by posing several scenarios that involved public risk that put the scientist in a dilemma. Should he speak up and inform people and risk his career, or keep quiet? Martin presented the ways in which the voice of truth could be stifled: But what if the "responsible authorities" have different prior- ities—or even are responsible for the problem? In these cases, outsiders, such as politicians, the media or environ- mental organisations, must be alerted... Unfortunately, this scenario is the exception rather than the rule. Most environ- mental scientists are afraid to take a public stand if it means appearing to challenge powerful corporations, governments or professions...aware of legislation which prohibits them from speaking to the media without permission...and afraid that they might be blocked from promotion. Gold went on to cite the virtues of scientific ideals and ideal- ism, and then balanced those against the real world that real scien- tists (who, in the end, are just people with degrees) live in—a world often characterised by less than idealistic motivations and behaviours. He recited some of his own unfortunate experiences which reveal that merit has little to do with the way modern sci- ence is run. This article is well worth reading, and it corroborates Martin's findings about the dangers of the peer review process. Returning to the issue and points brought up by Brian Martin, sociologist Michael J. Mahoney of Pennsylvania State University, USA, was one of the first to examine how well (or poorly) the peer review process works in evaluating scientific papers. Mahoney sent out copies of one paper to 75 reviewers, but We may well wonder if this is any way to run the enterprise of science. Martin notes that the suppression of intellectual dissent is most effective when the potential dissenter is left to ponder the possible consequences alone and therefore is likely to keep quiet. JUNE - JULY 2002 NEXUS ¢ 45 www.nexusmagazine.com