• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

BSE Prevalence Estimates

Mike

Well-known member
Does anyone know how a "Peer Review" system for scientific research works?

The USDA is hiring a contractor for the peer review of their "Prevalence" Estimate. Is this normal, do you have to hire someone to tell you whether an analysis is accurate? Why couldn't the GAO or the Inspector General do it?

This little love fest between RTI (Research Triangle Institute) and the USDA has been going on for quite awhile. JoAnn Waterfield hired them to do a livestock marketing analysis for GIPSA, among other things, RTI did a study on HACCP, etc.

DR. DEHAVEN: "Thanks again, Mr. Secretary. In terms of the peer review process, in fact we have just let a contract with a Research Triangle Institute who will then contract with we think approximately three or more peer reviewers who are appropriately credentialed, have the scientific expertise to do the appropriate peer review on this process and ensure that they are nonconflicted."
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Mike said:
Does anyone know how a "Peer Review" system for scientific research works?

The USDA is hiring a contractor for the peer review of their "Prevalence" Estimate. Is this normal, do you have to hire someone to tell you whether an analysis is accurate? Why couldn't the GAO or the Inspector General do it?

This little love fest between RTI (Research Triangle Institute) and the USDA has been going on for quite awhile. JoAnn Waterfield hired them to do a livestock marketing analysis for GIPSA, among other things, RTI did a study on HACCP, etc.

DR. DEHAVEN: "Thanks again, Mr. Secretary. In terms of the peer review process, in fact we have just let a contract with a Research Triangle Institute who will then contract with we think approximately three or more peer reviewers who are appropriately credentialed, have the scientific expertise to do the appropriate peer review on this process and ensure that they are nonconflicted."

Any bets on what the peer review will come up with? I'll even give odds.
 

flounder

Well-known member
I'LL BET YOU THIS, IT WANT BE THESE FOLKS THAT DID THIS PEER REVIEW OF THE HARVARD BSE RISK ASSESSMENT ;


suppressed peer review of Harvard study October 31, 2002

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/topics/BSE_Peer_Review.pdf


:lol2: :lol: :lol2:
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Mike said:
Does anyone know how a "Peer Review" system for scientific research works?

The USDA is hiring a contractor for the peer review of their "Prevalence" Estimate. Is this normal, do you have to hire someone to tell you whether an analysis is accurate? Why couldn't the GAO or the Inspector General do it?

Peer reviews shouldn't be hired by the people who did the initial research. They shouldn't even be paid by the people who did the initial research. An independent contractor should be appointed by a non-related committee (I'm ignorant of your government structure, but would this be Inspector General?). Otherwise it can lead to preferential hiring of contractors who may be willing to skew their results to keep a customer happy.

Rod
 

flounder

Well-known member
Mike wrote:
Does anyone know how a "Peer Review" system for scientific research works?
=====


http://www.aphis.usda.gov/about_aphis/printable_version/peer_review_plan_prevalence4-28-06.pdf


TSS
 

Mike

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Are you saying only a hostile review is acceptable to meet your standards????
MRJ

The Peer Review of the Harvard-Tuskeegee BSE Risk Analysis was with considerable hostility. What good or harm did it do?

All that is asked is that a review without conflicts of interest be performed.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Are you saying only a hostile review is acceptable to meet your standards????
MRJ

Of course not, why would you even remotely read that into what I wrote? A peer review should be completely independent and completely devoid of any ties to the process/company/committee being reviewed to prevent any kind of possible corruption in the results, whether they be positive or negative. The hiring committee should also not have a stake in the results, whether they be positive or negative, once again to prevent any kind of corruption in the results.

Example: Within business units of most large companies, peer reviews are often done by OTHER unrelated business units to prevent any kind of contamination, either by co-workers or the bosses of the unit being reviewed. That way, a negative result can't harm the reviewers, and they are just as likely to give a positive result. A "competing" business unit will also not be allowed to give a peer review, because of the possibility of skewing the results to the negative.

Rod
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Mike said:
Does anyone know how a "Peer Review" system for scientific research works?

The USDA is hiring a contractor for the peer review of their "Prevalence" Estimate. Is this normal, do you have to hire someone to tell you whether an analysis is accurate? Why couldn't the GAO or the Inspector General do it?

Peer reviews shouldn't be hired by the people who did the initial research. They shouldn't even be paid by the people who did the initial research. An independent contractor should be appointed by a non-related committee (I'm ignorant of your government structure, but would this be Inspector General?). Otherwise it can lead to preferential hiring of contractors who may be willing to skew their results to keep a customer happy.

Rod

You are right Rod- Any type of peer review or investigation should be hired by and done by a completely independent group....

Example- If when I was Sheriff if I had a Deputy Sheriff or government official accused of an offense, I would ask the Attorney General to appoint or hire an individual set of investigators or organization to do the investigation- which I did several times and only asked for one thing- that they keep me appraised of the situation in case their was a policy decision ( removal from duty- suspension-etc.) that needed to be done in the public interest.....
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Are you saying only a hostile review is acceptable to meet your standards????
MRJ

MRJ, this is the kind of leap frogging conclusions that have brought me to the conclusion that you have selective thinking and a crude bias hidden behind your agenda of NCBA propaganda. Can't we have a little objectivity from you on these kind of issues?
 

Latest posts

Top