Corruption in science...

Corruption in science...  Probably not the kind you're imagining.  Consider these thoughts:

I think peer review is hindering science. In fact, I think it has become a completely corrupt system. It’s corrupt in many ways, in that scientists and academics have handed over to the editors of these journals the ability to make judgment on science and scientists. There are universities in America, and I’ve heard from many committees, that we won’t consider people’s publications in low impact factor journals.

Now I mean, people are trying to do something, but I think it’s not publish or perish, it’s publish in the okay places [or perish]. And this has assembled a most ridiculous group of people. I wrote a column for many years in the nineties, in a journal called Current Biology. In one article, “Hard Cases”, I campaigned against this [culture] because I think it is not only bad, it’s corrupt. In other words it puts the judgment in the hands of people who really have no reason to exercise judgment at all. And that’s all been done in the aid of commerce, because they are now giant organizations making money out of it.

The first thing I thought of were the scrupulously peer-reviewed publications of Michael Mann and the rest of the IPCC gang of climatologists.  They are a perfect example.

Oh, who wrote this rant?  Sydney Brenner, biologist, professor, and 2002 Nobel Laureate.  He knows a thing or two about this subject...