Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BubbaFred who wrote (49467)	5/5/2004 12:19:17 AM
From: BubbaFred	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Criticizing the Critics Your article about British science1 misrepresented our Joint Code of Practice for Research. Far from wishing to "regulate" scientists or drown them in red tape, the Code of Practice is a significant and straightforward way in which we are striving to rebuild public confidence in science. We believe it is in everyone's interest that we ensure the highest quality standards in UK research. The criticisms in the article would perhaps be fair if, as the article suggests, our Code of Practice was a complicated set of paperwork "dreamed up" by a civil servant. This is not the case. The code has been developed by qualified and experienced scientists employed by the Civil Service and Research Councils, in discussion with scientists in research institutes. In reality, the Code of Practice simply provides a more overt framework for procedures that most researchers should already have in place: that managers ensure a climate of good scientific practice including, for example, that samples are comprehensively labeled [and] tracked through analysis and that data are able to be traced to the collator. Research organizations that do not comply may need to repeat work and adopting the Code of Practice should, in the long term, enable them to spend more money on original research. Furthermore, the decision to introduce the Code of Practice was made by government ministers, acting on behalf of the taxpayer. Since it is the taxpayer who ultimately funds our science, it seems reasonable that in return we promote means to ensure that the science is based upon sound and rigorous practices. Anything less not only risks policy decisions that are not based on the best available science and provides poor value for the taxpayer, but also damages science's standing in our society. I have consulted colleagues in the other organizations that have signed up to the Joint Code of Practice; they see matters in just the same light. Howard Dalton, FRS Chief Scientific Adviser Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs London howard.dalton@defra.gsi.gov.uk the-scientist.com