Welcome to our new site version. Your web page bookmarks may have changed, please search for pages by title to update them. Having problems ? Please try clearing your web browser cache and hard-reloading your web page first before contacting our webmaster.

Opinion: Defending the Independence of HF/E Science

[document] Submitted on 16 July, 2019 - 06:16
Keywords Opinion: Defending the Independence of HF/E Science HFES Bulletin FAA Human Factors
Standards groups

The article identifies these individuals and further discusses the process of “screening” whereby potential study section members were quizzed as to their political opinions prior to appointment – or not. These activities strike at the heart of scientific independence. The concern would not be that great if this was an isolated incident, but that is not the case (Rosenthal, Berndt, Donohue, Frank,
& Epstein, 2002). There isnowmounting evidence of systematic attempts to insinuate political opinion into scientific deliberation.

As one might imagine, this has become an extremely controversial issue, with allegations and counteraccusations (see Weiss, 2003). However, when prestigious scientific journals such as Science and the New England Journal of Medicine express significant concern, one sees the HF/E issue as only one among many threats to the impartiality of scientific information. The editors of The Lancet have also warned against the “growing evidence of explicit vetting
of appointees to influential [scientific] panels on the basis of their political or religious opinions.”

Our concern is with the precedent that such actions sets. If these trends are allowed to continue, it is clear that science in this country will not be influenced by appropriate evaluations that are consistent with the scientific process but, rather, will evolve to become an appendage to the opinion of whatever political faction temporarily holds sway. When political pressure infiltrates the peer review process by excluding otherwise qualified scientists because of their political views, by “stacking the deck” with only those scientists who support
the current administration’s political agenda, the scientific process becomes contaminated. Such single-sided bias in the selection of scientific juries inhibits the greater good of the pursuit of knowledge and suppresses scientific inquiry in certain areas by making political agendas part of the scientific review.

Metadata
Document identifier
Volume 46 Number 11
Date published
2003-11
Document type
bulletin
Pages
7
Replaced/Superseded by document(s)
Cancelled by
Amended by
File MIME type Size (KB) Language Download
Bulletin1103.pdf application/pdf   125.59 KB English DOWNLOAD!
File attachments
Organisation(s)
Publisher
Author(s)
Raja Parasuraman, Peter Hancock, Robert Radwin, & William Marras
Defines standard
Visit also