John Tierney's Science column in yesterday's New York Times , is yet another reminder of the problems we're having sorting out scientific fact from scientists' opinion. Tierney takes his cue from the new book, The Honest Broker , by Roger Pielke, Jr. who asks: can scientists be honest brokers? Pielke's concerned that scientists are "jeopardizing their credibility while impeding solutions to problems."

Tierney notes how Pres. Obama's new Energy Secretary and National Science Advisor have both made extremely radical "scientific" doomsday predictions (e.g. no farms in California by the end of the century and a billion deaths from climate change-induced famines by the year 2020, respectively) and recounts Pielke's analysis that scientists think they have two roles: pure researchers or experts providing evidence for political decisions:

A scientist can enter the fray by becoming an advocate for certain policies, like limits on carbon emissions or subsidies for wind power. That’s a perfectly legitimate role for scientists, as long as they acknowledge that they’re promoting their own agendas.

But too often, Dr. Pielke says, they pose as impartial experts pointing politicians to the only option that makes scientific sense. To bolster their case, they’re prone to exaggerate their expertise (like enumerating the catastrophes that would occur if their policies aren’t adopted), while denigrating their political opponents as “unqualified” or “unscientific.”

“Some scientists want to influence policy in a certain direction and still be able to claim to be above politics,” Dr. Pielke says. “So they engage in what I call ‘stealth issue advocacy’ by smuggling political arguments into putative scientific ones.”

When experts disagree, too often the result is name-calling, not resort to hard scientific data.

We've seen that in spades in the discussion of salt and health policy. We need to elevate science to its proper role in sorting out facts, not muddy the waters with expert opinion self-proclaimed as "science."

Put another way, as it is titled in an editorial in February's PLosMedicine: "An unbiased scientific record should be everyone's agenda ." Absolutely.

Recognizing that authors and publishers have built-in biases, the editorial identifies five problem areas:

1. "Journals generally have policies regarding declaration of competing interests by authors. Similarly, editors’ political and scientific views, personal relationships, and professional and financial interests can all conceivably interfere with the objectivity of their decisions."
2. "So much has been published relating to the damaging nature of commercial competing interests that it is tempting to ignore the influence of non-commercial interests in research. Yet publications can be influenced by the desire to promote an idea, or a research program, rather than a commercial product."
3. "All contributors to the debate agree on one thing: a transparent declaration of author contributions is an essential requirement. As part of such a transparency policy, editors can therefore ensure that the individuals responsible for essential roles in research (such as designing the project, carrying out analyses, and writing the paper) are actually named, and their roles and competing interests made clear in the publication."
4. "Many journals now have policies requiring, or recommending, the submission of original protocol documents before papers reporting the results of clinical trials are peer reviewed....these policies enable verification of the study’s prespecified objectives and analysis plan, and require clear description of any subsequent changes."
5. "Editors have an important role to play in encouraging authors to value their results, irrespective of the study’s outcome. For example, in an attempt to impress editors with the importance of a study, authors may overemphasize an intriguing post-hoc subgroup analysis, or may avoid stating that a well-conducted trial was inconclusive in its primary outcomes. Editors can help combat this problem by emphasizing to authors that their data are still publishable if overstated conclusions are appropriately toned down."

We stand with the editors who conclude:

Peer-reviewed publication is the final, essential step in any research project, providing legitimization and credit for the work that has been done. It is the responsibility of everyone involved to ensure that the published record is an unbiased, accurate representation of research. We recognize that today there are many, and increasing, pressures on authors and journals to bias this record. If this pressure is not resisted, journals may increasingly become closer to works of fiction telling the stories dictated by various lobbies rather than works of science. We hope that PLoS Medicine’s efforts, and those of many other journals, to promote full transparency will ultimately lead to a more rigorous and unbiased knowledge base.