sheep,
On 16 Sep 2005, at 23:42, Nick Dalton wrote:

> Hmm. what I was trying to point out was that ultimately 'science'  
> will have to respond to things like the journals which now report  
> on papers on intelligent  design (http://www.arn.org/). By wrapping  
> them selves up in the process of scientific research the anti- 
> evolution groups are interrupting the true teaching of science in  
> schools. The same is happening for anti-global warming research.

Hopefully, people are starting to become wise to who has paid for  
studies (unfortunately, in response, many of these organisations have  
created "Institutes" such as the Access Research Network (above) to  
"hide" behind). This "who pays the piper calls the tune" thing is  
what I most dislike about consultancy - I put it behind some of our  
major failures in areas such as public transport.

Space Syntax Ld. did a study on Bracknell and were involved in the  
production of a masterplan for the town centre. However, the street  
connectivity in the proposed development (following the masterplan)  
does not suggest any such thing has reached the designers who were  
putting the plan together (incidentally, this was why I was after  
Mindwalk - I still haven't got round to putting everything together.  
My feeling is that the developers have been trying to use the tenuous  
connection with SSL to suggest somehow that their plan is good.

> As I pointed out anyone could set up a journal and accept papers on  
> any old tosh. Given that there is nothing to tell members of the  
> public what is or is not legitimate research it means organizations  
> with an agenda can wrap them selves up in the mantel of science. If  
> science had no wider effect on society this would have no great  
> import. Infact many members of the public have high regard for  
> anything labeled 'scientific' ( think skin cream adverts).  
> Ultimatly the old boys network way of doing things will have to  
> give way to a more organized system of verification.

I have been worrying about this sort of thing a lot recently. I am in  
the process of starting a magazine - not quite a journal, but with  
scientifically inclined articles, and the possibility to peer review  
papers. One of my friends describes it as somewhere between  
NewScientist and Spider-Man.

Anyway, we don't have an agenda apart from wanting to find out what's  
wrong with the world and change it.

> This and other related regulatory mechanisms should and must be in  
> place. This is how science must be organized in the future.

I would agree entirely (although I do wonder what position it might  
put my magazine in).

-- 
Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
transcience, Leeds Innovation Centre, 103 Clarendon Road, LEEDS LS2 9DF