In this context, I found another interesting example of a major problem with "science" today, that is, conflicts of interest. In the case of "smell science," there is a lot of money to be made, and this is where the high priests and pushed aside (though they still have their editorial and publishing power, of course), unlike with "HIV/AIDS," where there is money to be lost if Peter Duesberg and the "Perth Group" were given research money and taken seriously by the powerful figures in this establishment. In Turin's book, "The Secret of Scent" (2006), he describes a specific instance of this situation:
"Nature Neuroscience, however, believes the issue resolved. In an extraordinary editorial accompanying the paper, an anonymous writer thunders in the Grand Manner: 'The paper by Keller and Vosshall on page 337 of this issue is unusual; it describes a refutation of a scientific theory [really, at best, a hypothesis - they should know better] that, while provocative, has almost no credence in scientific circles. The only reason for the authors to do the study, or for Nature Neuroscience to publish it, is the extraordinary - and inappropriate - degree of publicity that the theory has received from critical journalists.' Interestingly, the author turned out to be Charles Jennings, founding editor of Nature Neuroscience, who at the time of my submission to Nature in 1995 was junior eidtor in charge of accepting or rejecting neuroscience manuscripts..."
"To declare the debate closed after one article, as Nature did, seems like undue haste...."\
But reality bites these poor excuses for scientists on the proverbial butt: "...our success rate was one product in ten molecules synthesized, two orders of magnitude better than the industry standard of one in a thousand. I guess I'll just carry on using my theory, credence or not..."
Page 188 to189. Note that the content in the brackets was supplied by me, not Turin, who also uses the term "theory" in a way that I consider inaccurate. |