🚀 go-pugleaf

[ Note: followups set to aus.science ]

I was talking to an erstwhile colleague this morning as he was 
shredding a multi-page document and, in a moment of jest, I commented 
on the obviously secret nature of his work.

I was somewhat startled by his reply.  It seems that the publishing 
guidelines for the funding body that supports his work [one of those 
QANGOs largely funded by you and me through taxes, though with some 
direct industry contribution too] demand that any "scientific 
publications" from his work should conceal all detail that would 
enable someone else to repeat his studies!

I found this somewhat in conflict with the generally accepted 
principle that "peer review" and all the rest of it both 
facilitated progress and guaranteed scientific integrity because 
anyone else with suitable training and resources could repeat your 
work to confirm the results.  (Not that most people would have the 
inclination to I guess.  But you never know. :-)

What is the point of a "scientific publication" which barely hints at 
what was done and won't tell you how?

But perhaps I'm just old fashioned.


Cheers, Phred.

-- 
ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID