Michael Kohn wrote:
>> > In the most recent issue of Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA that I have seen
> > (vol. 94, pp. 13388-13389 (1997)), Roy Pollock and Michael Gilman deliver
> > themselves of the following opinion: ...
>> This opinion is so preposterous that it almost deserves no notice
In my own opinion, the manuscript review process in P.N.A.S. differs
from other journals in such a way that it increases the likelihood of
substandard work being published. As we all know, each manuscript must
be (in essence) 'recommended' by a member of the Academy. Could it be
that this procedure creates a reluctance on the part of some reviewers
to reject a preposterous piece? Over the years, I collected several
P.N.A.S. "gems" which are not only debatable but ridiculously
pseudo-scientific both in style and contents, despite (or because?) they
were 'recommended' by powerful personalities in contemporary American
science.
On the more general level, let us not kid ourselves about the nature of
the scientific enterprise, so eloquently exposed by the philosopher
Steven Fuller (University of Colorado, Department of Philosophy) in his
book "Philosophy of Science and its Discontents". Established
principles are frequently ignored in the published literature! As
Fuller explains, preposterous opinions are par for the course, because
of numerous reasons both intrinsic and extrinsic to the process of
knowledge creation. However, I heartily agree with Michael Kohn:
> [they] must be fought and ultimately (one hopes) extirpated
_____________________________________________________________
Petr Kuzmic Ph.D. * BioKin Ltd. * Madison, WI 53708-8336, USA
pkuzmic at biokin.com * http://www.biokin.com * 608.256.1269 fax
