Having submitted my peer review and it being fresh in my mind, I’d like to offer some more thoughts on this. I’m probably not alone in asking “so what?” What’s the point in actually doing a peer review? What kind of impact can I possibly have? To the researcher? What about to the rest of society? Well I came across a newspaper article on the discourse on wind turbines and their effect on our health. One camp (the Ontario government) claims that wind turbines don’t have any adverse health impact on our health and they cite a report by Dr. A. King, Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health. No information is given on what sources are used in this report, but I suppose we can assume it is not peer-reviewed. On the other hand, those opposed to wind farms contend that they do have an effect. To substantiate their claims they utilize the controlled, peer-reviewed, scientific study published in the Noise & Health journal which for the first time links industrial wind turbines to serious health problems. I think sometimes as students, when we’re doing critical reviews, we forget that these articles, especially when peer-reviewed, can be used to improve conditions in the world around us. I’m beginning to realize that policy makers and special interest groups do have an important duty to citizens to use peer-reviewed studies when deciding on a specific course of action, especially when it could impact our health and daily life. I really don’t think researchers write their articles just for writing sake, for selfish purposes, or for them to be created, stored and forgotten in the world of cyberspace never to be read again. Reading this reminded and reassured me about how significant peer reviewing is and that it can contribute to making our world a better place to live in. If used for ethical purposes, peer-reviewed articles are a kind of “weapon” against decision-making that is based on wishy-washy, questionable “studies” that ultimately only serve one interest group.
No comments:
Post a Comment