The disaster of the pro-social review system-Watt?

From climate, etc.

John Ridgway

How to produce emerging scientific consensus on how social projects supported by pro -social review.

Recently published research papers Meeting of the National Academy of Sciences It is believed that the self-examination system and colleagues' pro-social review are common in science-the problem will only be worse. Some characters make the reading grim:

“The national survey of American teachers in the four -year university recently found that 4 % to 11 % were subject to discipline or threats from teaching or research disciplines; 2) 6 % to 36 % of people supported the same age with controversial claims. Human soft punishment (condemnation, survey), get higher support among young, left -leaning and female teachers; 3) 34 % of them are under pressure from their peers to avoid controversial research; 4) 25 % of people report, reported that The possibility of self -examination in academic publications is “very” or “very likely”; 5) 91 % of people report that at least self -censorship in publications, conferences, speeches or social media.

Lennart BengtsSon's case

On April 30, 2014, a Swedish meteorologist caused a shock wave, causing international climate scientists to echo the society. This is not because he has made major discoveries and did not participate in the scientific scandal. But what he did was the basic crime of committing the global warming policy foundation (GWPF) with suspicion. The reason why it is so shocking is that he is not just an old meteorologist in Sweden. He used to be Professor Lennart BengtsSon. He was a former research director of the European Middle weather forecast center, and it was not until 1990 that he became his director. Subsequently, he continued to be the director of the Hamburg Max Planck Institute of Meteorological. Among his many honors, he won the Milanding Milan Civic Medal in 1996. In 2005, the Leinelcar Cooperation Research Award and the 51st International Meteorological Organization Award were in 2006. 2009. The Royal Meteorological Society recognizes his contribution to meteorology.

Only two weeks later, the same Swedish meteorologist resigned from the same foundation. Desmog's self -appointed scientific truth guardian will tell you that this is because he has not fully realized what the rebirth he joined, so he quickly learned to regret his behavior. However, this is what Bangerson said in the resignation letter:

“In recent days, I have been under so huge pressure, which is almost unbearable for me. If I want to continue, I will be unable to work normally, and I will even start to worry about my health and safety. Therefore, except for except for I have no other way to resign from GWPF … My colleagues are withdrawing their support, and other colleagues are withdrawn from the joint author. In the primitive peaceful community such as meteorological science, I will never expect anything similar. Obviously, it has changed in recent years.

Benggsson's review colleague seemed to condemn him quickly to condemn his allegations to prove his point of view. For example, Gavin Schmidt Be fired He mentioned that McCarthyism is “Ridiculous“It is prompted that brave scientists like him are the real victims of hunting witch.

Although it seemed to have shocked Professor Banders in this way, he couldn't claim that he hadn't seen it. At the beginning of the same year Environmental research letter Based on his discovery is “Useless“. Through clarification, the colleagues who followed the judge added blame,”In fact [the paper] Harm, because it opens the door for the excessive simplification of “wrong”, and it is even worse from the media aspect of the climate suspect.“. When Bengtsson and others (such as a meteorologist Hans Von Storch condemned to refuse to be regarded as scandal, the publisher of the journal desperately described the comments of peer reviewers. It claims that the paper does not meet the high standards of the journal at all.

Pro -social review system

In fact, BengtsSon was reviewed by a pro -social censorship. This is a form of review system that refuses to work and is canceled individually because it is unqualified or defective, but because it may destroy precious ideological or other people's concepts of social security and harmony. Of course, this censorship system has never been depicted. The reason for giving is always related individuals are selling unqualified jobs, leading to harmful error information.

For example, if you want to be a reputation risk professor vaccine with international forensic statistics, you may cancel your career because you are selling harmful error messages.

For example, if you want to be a consultant psychiatrist and psychotherapist, and provide more than 15 years of experience for patients with irritable gender, but then you dare to say that everything in your professional experience will give you you get you. The inevitable conclusion is the inevitable conclusion of Transgender. Exclassiers are guilty and promoted improper physical intervention measures to solve basic psychological problems, and then you may be condemned as “The most evil dangerous Nazi psychiatrist in the world” -A good attitude.

For example, if you are a physicist of CERN, there is a bright future in front, but this is implying that the representative of gender imbalance in your field has nothing to do with the patriarchal system, which is related to the inherent gender characteristics, then you can expect to be your scientist by your scientist Edge and exclude by your scientists.

For example, if you want to be a famous climate scientist Quantify Climate and Non -climate Cause and effect of wildfireUnfortunately, his false narrative is foresee“. To even worse,, except Professor Ken Rice (think the poor's Sabine HossenFelder), I have nothing to do, call you dead now that you are dead now. The

“Given that there can be a preferred narrative in the scientific community, it is always good for those who are believed to be credible and opposed to them. Even if you don't agree with them, they can still put forward the views worth considering. In my opinion, Patrick Once One of them. ” [His emphasis]

Oh, all these shame!

In the above example, the common narrative is one of the previous respected experts. He sorrows from grace because they can't help themselves and allow their toxic opinions to damage their ability to persist in truth. As a result, they immediately became incompetent bad actors. These pranks are dangerous to society, and they should be reviewed quickly and emphasized.

What needs to be clear is that these are not isolated examples.

However, there is an observation trend. In social sciences, the review system has more problems than in STEM College. Women are more eager to review than male colleagues. Moreover, although right -leaf scholars are more likely to engage in self -examination, people with left -leaning are more likely to approve their colleagues' pro -social review. Because the review of pro -society is biased towards the choice and promotion of staff, the current structure of the system is the advantage of a large number of left -leaning scholars in high -level positions. To make matters worse, the appetite for the review of relatives society is larger than within a doctoral degree than in the doctoral degree, which shows that-the long saying of borrowing climate scientists-the future problem is baked in the future.

As the term implies, those who advocate a system of reviewing the social review system usually do this because they think they are the best motivation. The most common is that the purpose is to prevent research from being “Malicious actors support harmful policies and attitudes“Sometimes, the study is considered too dangerous to pursue. In many other cases, the review system aims to protect vulnerable groups. However, no matter how good the review system is It is possible to suppress the truth for “greater benefits”.

The most trivial is that all possible dangers are the reputation of a person and sacrifice competitors. In the most extreme cases, the pro -social review system may involve “Intentional blindness of the authoritiesCover the crimes that are fingeled, because they are worried that they will offend a part of society or encourage the right wing, and the right wing is considered to be looking for any excuses to destroy stability. Somewhere in the middle is the concerns caused by climate doubt. Although we know that science should not operate through consensus, we still want to believe that emerging consensus is the result of common sense of development, not the result of the social engineering that can be achieved by pro -social review. Unfortunately, it is not unique to know that Professor Bouganson's experience is far unique, which is not helpful for this belief. Moreover, when everything is finished, it is the biggest shame of everyone. The censorship system of the pro -society seems to be a good idea, but when it destroys the integrity of discipline and causes general dislikes in a wider range of communities, it is at least desirable.