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science is shoddy or data interpretation is poor, the paper will not be
published.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.

Of course, in regard to the question of dairy consumption, for me, it is a
moot point.  I have been lactose intolerant for more than 25 years.  I
couldn't drink the stuff, even if it was determined to be the world's most
perfect food.

Amanda Ackerman