Explore >> Select a destination
|
You are here 
|
blogs.bmj.com | ||
| | | | |
lemire.me
|
|
| | | | | [AI summary] The article discusses the limitations of peer review in science, using historical and contemporary examples to argue that it is not the gold standard. It highlights cases where peer review may suppress innovative or controversial ideas, such to the lab origin of SARS-CoV-2. The piece critiques the suppression of dissenting views and the role of funding and institutional pressures in shaping scientific discourse. It concludes that science should be open and progressive, with peer review being a tool rather than a gatekeeping mechanism. | |
| | | | |
arena.org.au
|
|
| | | | | Critical * Radical * Australia * Earth | |
| | | | |
bylinetimes.com
|
|
| | | | | The 'think-tank' behind the Great Barrington Declaration is part-funded by right-wing American billionaire Charles Koch | |
| | | | |
www.cidrap.umn.edu
|
|
| | | |||
