Peer review in science is a good thing, in the sense that it works better than any other process you can think of. But how well does it work? Dilbert Blog reader Jeff points to this link about the limits of peer review.
http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band88/b88-4.html [no longer available]
The article fits my preconceived notions quite well. Assuming scientists are human beings, it seems to me that most peer reviewers would fall into one of these categories:
1. Asshole
2. Biased egomaniac
3. Nice person who doesn’t want to make people feel bad
4. Too busy to put any quality thought into it
5. Person with low self-esteem who doesn’t want others to succeed in his or her field
6. Coward who doesn’t want to rock the boat
I suppose some scientists have plenty of free time, no biases, and would be happy to see colleagues succeed beyond their own careers. But seriously, how many of those scientists could there be? I don’t know any non-scientists who could fit that description.
Still, I assume peer review works well enough for killing the worst ideas. I don’t have a better idea for evaluating science. It’s just important to keep things in perspective.
[Update: Here’s a link to an even better article on peer review: http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1963 — Scott]
[Update 2: Reader Winston points out this article debunking the notion that scientists ever generally thought an ice age was imminent: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ — Scott]