What do we want?
When do we want it?
After peer review.
works well enough. But if the purpose is to push out a message to passers-by, or the fuming folk on the top deck of a bus delayed by your science-solidarity rally then 'evidence-based policy' is not terribly helpful instantly forgettable mouthful and 'peer-review' is mere jargon. In the Irish Times, the Provost of Trinity College, a bio-engineer, is quoted as advocating policy-based science. That's
bonkers got lost in translation. No scientist I know is willing to be told what to research by some policy-wonk.
Depending on whom you ask, either 600 or 1,000 people were on the March. That count was surely enough to allay my concern that only three handfuls of moaners would turn up to inconvenience the traffic. The March was originally conceived as a show of solidarity with our brethren in the benighted USA where they seem to be parking 60 years of scientific progress in medicine, agriculture, space and genomics and going back to witchcraft and blood-letting. Whatever about solidarity with my pals for the US [two of whom were out in Boston], I was delighted to bump into lots of old friends from this side of the pond; people whom I haven’t seen for a decade. I bodged up a prototype travelling placard consisting of two bamboos, string, duct-tape and a roll of plastic. Because the prototype worked, in short order I had 4 placards (and only two hands)
- Only here for the valence
- No such thing as a fish on one side and Skeptical About Science on the back
- Wexford Science Cafe
The juxtaposition of the two rallies presses the button for a worry of mine which I has trying to articulate with my Skeptical About Science slogan. I talked to a young chap at the science rally who was carrying around a "more science | less religion | in our schools": look at my slogan, kidder, you want to be careful about those scientists who believe in evolution . . . but couldn't marshal the evidence for that belief. I know, I've been there.