In my experience you are both right. To a large extent dairy research world
wide is funded by the dairy industry and research that is not pro dairy
simply would not get funding from the industry. Reviewed papers are
published in JDSc or JDR or some smaller national journals where the
referees are other dairy scientists whose pay cheques come from the dairy
industry. Publication is usually only on the approval of the funding body.
While the scientists may have the best intentions and unquestionable
ethics, it is not an environment which tolerates much deviation from the
party line.

John

At 11:43  17/12/98 -0700, you wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, Kimberly Sherwood wrote:
>
>> I wonder that if some of the data
>> about the dangers of cross-species milk ingestion was given to other
>> scientists to review, that because the American Dairy Association is such a
>> huge and powerful industry many scientists and doctors wouldn't dare put
their
>> names on anything anti-dairy for fear of losing funding.
>
>I think I see what you are saying but, in my experience, the scientists
>reviewing the data do so anonymously, so it would be difficult, if not
>impossible, for funding agencies or industrial concerns, to determine who
>had reviewed a particular manuscript.  A subpoena might do the trick. A
>break-in would probably be less complicated.
>
>You know, papers are not reviewed by just one individual.  They are
>reviewed by several people independently.  If the consensus is that the
>science is shoddy or data interpretation is poor, the paper will not be
>published.  The reviewers have to give detailed reasons for their
>recommendations though.  They can't just say, "I don't want this paper
>published because a certain industrial concern may not like it."
>
>Those are some of the checks that are in place to remove bias from
>the peer review process.  I'm the first to admit that the peer review
>system is far from perfect, but it is the best that we have been able to
>come up with so far.