About the SA Blog Network



Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American
Observations HomeAboutContact

Young Scientists Encourage the Public to Demand Peer Review

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Email   PrintPrint

Young scientist and Sense about Science volunteer Amara Anyogu.

It seems that more and more policy makers, advocacy groups, advertisers and media pundits are making claims based on science: this kind of potion is good for your health, that chemical is bad for the environment, this new technology can reduce crime. How is the public supposed to know what to believe?

The peer review system can help cut through the uncertainty and obfuscation. Yet few members of the public other than scientists know what peer review is or how it can be used.

A charitable trust based in London called Sense about Science aims to change that inadequacy. It is promoting several initiatives to help the average citizen learn how to question scientific claims and to encourage people to demand that anyone providing scientific results reveal whether those results have been peer reviewed.

On February 13, for example, Sense about Science launched a U.S. campaign called Ask for Evidence to prompt people to question scientific-sounding information. Leaders from the organization held a boot camp at the MIT Museum in Cambridge, Mass., where men and women in its Voice of Young Science USA program planned ways to spread the campaign nationwide. They also decided to target several specific topics: dietary supplements, gun control policy and fracking for natural gas, as well as changing weather patterns, so-called superfoods, vaccinations, alternative medicine and radiation. The program encourages early career researchers to play an active role in public debates about science.

The Ask for Evidence campaign has raised public awareness in the U.K, where Sense about Science has been working for a decade. Today, when Brits are stopped at random on the streets of London and asked if they know what peer review is, many of them say yes, and can explain the system, said Julia Wilson, development manager at Sense about Science. Yet almost no one on the average U.S. street corner knows the term, she noted.

Most British media also now specify whether a new scientific finding they are reporting on has been peer reviewed or not. In February 2012 the British Broadcasting Company instated an official policy that all of its online reporters should include citations of published papers in their stories. Most British newspapers, even the infamous tabloids, now state where new research has come from, and if the work has been published they will name the journal. American media lags far behind.

A week before the launch at MIT, Sense about Science released the American version of a guide already used in Britain, called I Don’t Know What to Believe: Making Sense of Science Stories. The guide explains how scientists present and judge information, including peer review. In its release, the group said that many British groups use the U.K. version to help them convey information clearly to the public, including health workers, librarians, public-health officials, policy-makers, technology companies, safety bodies, popular writers, educators, parenting groups and local governments.

Wilson said the guide “is being used by over 200 organizations involved in communicating evidence to the public.” Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief of the influential journal Nature, said the guide “is invaluable in explaining how peer review contributes to the health of science.” (Scientific American is part of the Nature Publishing Group.) It can be freely downloaded here.

Commenting on the Voice of Young Science program, John Durant, director of the MIT Museum, encouraged scientist of all ages to speak out more about issues. “If the non-specialist majority is to have any chance of making sense of science amidst all the hullabaloo,” he said, scientists themselves need to speak up clearly and make sure they’re being heard. David Ropeik, who teaches risk communication at Harvard University, added that the program “can play an important role by challenging the hucksters and charlatans and advocates who spin the facts to their selfish use, thereby providing an important public service in helping people make more informed and intelligent judgments about their health and well-being.

Photo courtesy of Sense about Science

Mark Fischetti About the Author: Mark Fischetti is a senior editor at Scientific American who covers energy, environment and sustainability issues. Follow on Twitter @markfischetti.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Rights & Permissions

Comments 7 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. ironjustice 10:24 am 02/27/2013

    One should also explain , even with peer review , detracted studies occur and also explain how sometimes only by internet ‘campaigns’.
    An internet campaign can get a journal to detract an article ?
    It has become a joke.
    “The shroud of retraction: Virology Journal”

    Link to this
  2. 2. Nantizle 11:56 am 02/27/2013

    Public awareness of peer review would be a great step forward, however it should not be presented as an infallible and unbiased process. No such thing.

    Link to this
  3. 3. Sisko 1:14 pm 02/27/2013

    It is not just being peer reviewed that is important, but who does the peer review that is important. The peer review process is flawed but it is science and the truth will prevail over time.

    Link to this
  4. 4. brandqw 2:01 pm 02/27/2013

    as Wanda replied I’m stunned that some people able to profit $7511 in 4 weeks on the internet. did you look at this web site
    WOW92 ℂℴℳ

    Link to this
  5. 5. david123 7:48 pm 02/27/2013

    This forum needs a “report abuse” button and a moderator who can delete posts and user accounts.

    Link to this
  6. 6. DrKrishnaKumariChalla 9:55 pm 02/27/2013

    I have been waiting to see this type of initiatives since the day I entered a lab. Glad to hear about it.People are so confused about so many science based claims they don’t know what to believe and what not to believe. What to accept as evidence and what not.
    But I am still skeptic about some peer reviews.How will we know all peer reviewed papers are 100% true? The problem is while reviewing science papers, the reviewers have to be good at several things and they have to be very neutral. How many reviwers are available who have these qualities?

    Link to this
  7. 7. antistokes 8:30 am 02/28/2013

    I’ve published across a few different scientific disciplines. The best peer review systems I’ve encountered for experimental science use 3 referees: 2 that are absolute experts in the field and are often “competing” with each other, and 1 that is in a related field, but does different research and has no conflicts of interest. It’s different for math and physics though– there’s a reason why manuscripts are uploaded to arXiv simultaneously with submission to a journal; so everyone in the community knows who did the math first.

    Also, the press should recall that the “real” peer review in experimental science happens AFTER publication occurs and everyone in the community repeats the experiment and sees if it is replicable. If the data cannot be reproduced in a different lab by different scientists, then technically speaking it is not science. -Dr. Allison L. Stelling

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Email this Article