The United States has «got to protect our rigorous peer review system and ensure that we only fund proposals that promise the biggest bang for taxpayer dollars... [And] make sure that our scientific research does not fall victim to political maneuvers or agendas that in some ways would impact on
the integrity of the scientific process.»
«
The integrity of the scientific process and my research is my highest priority, and I have acted to ensure that any errors in the record are fully corrected,» she wrote.
Over time, journals established conventions for publication that are intended to preserve
the integrity of the scientific process (including an infrastructure for quality control and peer review) and they helped disseminate the scientific results.
I am saddened and appalled by this effort, not only because of the personal hurt it causes me and my family and friends, but also because of the damage it does to
the integrity of the scientific process.
However,
the integrity of the scientific process can not thrive when policymakers — regardless of party affiliation — use policy disagreements as a pretext to challenge scientific conclusions.
«Leaders who not only invested in our scientists, but who respected
the integrity of the scientific process.»
In fact I would argue a forteriori that protecting
the integrity of scientific processes — in this case, the confidentiality of an authoring team's internal correspondence — is a legitimate and proper thing for a scientis to do.
Our fields depend on
the integrity of the scientific process (generating hypotheses, testing them with sound methods and measures, and running analyses).