This document summarizes a presentation on increasing scrutiny of science and how it has become more public. It discusses how trust in science has declined among conservatives over time and remains high among the general public compared to trust in other institutions like the president. It also examines what fuels mistrust, including focusing only on rare cases of misconduct instead of addressing systemic issues. Key lessons from controversies like arsenic-based life are presented, along with the growing role of blogs in policing misconduct and journals increasingly embracing post-publication peer review to promote integrity. Contact information is provided for following up.

1. We Are All Gatekeepers Now:
Scrutiny of Science Goes Public
Society for Scholarly Publishing
Fall Educational Seminar
November 7, 2012
Ivan Oransky, MD
Retraction Watch
Reuters Health

2. Science Under the Microscope
The Guardian, September 13, 2012

3. Science Under the Microscope
The New York Times, October 1, 2012

4. Who Mistrusts Science?
From 1974 to 2010, “group differences in trust
in science are largely stable…except for
respondents identifying as conservative.
Conservatives began the period with the
highest trust in science, relative to liberals and
moderates, and ended the period with the
lowest.”
Gauchat, American Sociological Review, 2012

5. Who Trusts Science?
77% of respondents said they trust scientists
to tell the truth, compared to less than 20%
who thought the President would.
Harris poll, 2006

6. Who Mistrusts Science?
-- Irish Medical Research Council

7. What Fuels Mistrust of Science?
The argument goes something like this:
Science is self-correcting, so it takes care of its
own mistakes. And scientific fraud is rare, so
focusing on misconduct gives a distorted
picture of research that will only give
ammunition to critics, who want to cast doubt
on subjects such as climate change and
vaccine safety.
Marcus and Oransky, Lab Times, 9/12

8. What Really Fuels Mistrust of Science?
It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up. People
stop trusting institutions when they
continue to insist “Move along, nothing to
see here”, despite the stubborn
persistence of misconduct.
Marcus and Oransky, Lab Times, 9/12

9. Themes
• Lessons from arsenic life
• The power of blogs
• Post-publication peer review, and how
embracing it can promote ethical
behavior

10. Arsenic Life
http://discovermagazine.com

11. Arsenic Life
http://discovermagazine.com

12. Anonymous Whistleblowers Step Up
http://www.labtimes.org

13. Blogs Get Aggressive
http://abnormalscienceblog.wordpress.com/

14. Blogs Get Aggressive

15. Blogs Get Aggressive
http://md-anderson-cc.blogspot.com

16. Blogs Get Aggressive
http://www.science-fraud.org/

17. Journals are Listening

18. Retraction Watch

19. Retraction Watch
http://www.nature.com/nm/

20. Retraction Watch
http://www.nature.com/nm/

21. Post-Publication Peer Review
Nature (22 Dec 2011) doi:10.1038/480449a

22. Post-Publication Peer Review
http://crossref.org/

23. Post-Publication Peer Review

24. Post-Publication Peer Review
http://precedings.nature.com/

25. Post-Publication Peer Review

26. Alt Metrics
http://total-impact.org/

27. Alt Metrics
http://sciencecard.org/

28. Contact Info
ivan-oransky@erols.com
http://retractionwatch.com
@ivanoransky (better)
Thanks to Nancy Lapid, Reuters Health