Importance of peer-reviewed science in the debates on public policy

Abstract

Should we as a society or group of societies use good science as the arbitrator when deciding on public policy? It is easy to contend simply that the answer is yes. By analogy, I would not hesitate about making a decision for myself or my family about using a physician who does not use good science when providing medical advice or treatment. That decision is easy—I would not use the physician and I would venture to suggest that the answer would be the same for most people. Similarly, we want an aircraft, automobile, train, bridge, or highway designed and constructed by engineers following sound scientific principles. We might question as to what are sound scientific principles and good science. The simple answer is that good science is peerreviewed science published in high-quality professional journals. This emphasizes the importance of these journals surviving and prospering as there is a sustained push toward open access as discussed in earlier editorials (Scanes, 2007, 2008). Can we expect technological innovation that is not based on sound science? It would be tempting to discuss issues where good science should be part of the national or international debates on agricultural biotechnology (genetically modified crops, transgenic animals, and use of molecular markers to assist breeders) or agricultural systems to maximize production and ensure environmental sustainability or improving the safety of food by irradiation or human contribution to global warming or even inclusion of evolution in the public school curricula. Instead, I will focus on the issue of animal welfare or well-being. It is concerning that public debate on the issues of animal welfare or well-being is so often polemic based. There is, unfortunately, use of imprecise but emotive words such as “factory farming,” “cruel and inhumane factory farm confinement devices,” “filthy cages,” “suffering,” or even “industrial agriculture.” Moreover, the discussions are frequently fueled by articles on the Web that do not appear to have gone through peer review. Examples of the latter include the following: The Humane Society of the United States report comparing the welfare of hens in battery cages and other systems (Shields and Duncan, 2008) and the LayWel project reports (http://www.laywel.eu/). LayWel is a research project to summarize the welfare implications of changes in production systems for laying hens. It is funded by European Union (EU) and various EU countries. Moreover, the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production has produced reports on several issues in animal agriculture including animal well-being (http:// www.ncifap.org/issues/animal_health_well_being/). Parenthetically, it might be mentioned that membership of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production included few agricultural scientists and no poultry scientists. These reports may or may not be good science but the critical issue is the peer review providing a seal of approval. There is no reason why papers or reviews comparing, for instance, the behavior or physiology of hens in cages and other systems should not go through peer review and then be published in a journal such as Poultry Science. The journal is very open to considering such submissions. The advances of human society from modern agriculture through public health to electronic communication to complex machinery to nanotechnology and so many other examples have all depended on good science. We owe it to the next generations to re-focus on science education and publication in peer-reviewed journals.