Its advice will be based on a 71 - page booklet, Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005, released in January, that resulted from a 1 1/2 - year examination of the latest
science by a panel of experts.
Not exact matches
Researchers will send proposals directly to the ERC, he says, where they will be judged
by «20
panels of mixed
experts that cover all fields from humanities to life
sciences to engineering.»
The guideline recommendations were developed
by a multinational and multidisciplinary
panel of oncology, obstetrics / gynecology, public health, cancer control, epidemiology / biostatistics, health economics, behavioral / implementation
science, and patient advocacy
experts, including some
of the world's foremost research leaders on HPV and HPV vaccines.
Now, a
panel of international
experts has reviewed the designs and come out squarely in favor
of the simpler proposal, according to a copy
of the review obtained
by Science.
But an
expert panel he chairs, chartered
by the American Association for the Advancement
of Science, which publishes ScienceNOW, has had certain criticisms
of the RRW program, warning that skyrocketing costs
of maintaining current weapons and making new ones will put the weapons lab in a «very challenging» position.
The interview protocol was reviewed and validated
by a
panel of three
experts in the fields
of science education, technology integration, and research design (Appendix A).
Letters criticizing the book's portrayal
of climate
science were written to the publisher and authors
by James E. Hansen
of NASA and Michael MacCracken, a former government climate
expert and longtime contributor to the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change.
For example, the paired statements «Environmentalists assert that the reports
by the
panel are watered down
by a requirement that sponsoring governments approve its summaries line
by line» and «Some
experts fret that the organization, charged with assessing fast - evolving
science, has failed to keep pace with an explosion
of climate research» seem too easy, and I worry that such beliefs and accusations become propagated as facts without some serious evaluation as to their authority.
Perhaps it is because the same procedures have been adopted
by many other assessments in many other contexts; the National Academies
of Science, for example, produces consensus documents from diverse committees and
panels that are subjected to
expert review from selected external scholars (and it is perhaps noteworthy that NAS reports occasionally feature signed dissents on particular points).
A
panel of professional
experts in communicating
science presented their views and advice, followed
by a question and answer period.
Many studies simply defer to the
expert summary
of climate
science research put together
by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which says that most
of the global warming since the mid-20th century has been caused
by humans.
Many studies simply defer to the
expert summary
of climate
science research put together
by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which states that most
of the global warming since the mid-20th century has been caused
by humans.
Written
by thousands
of science, policy, and economics
experts from around the world, the UN International
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports represent a synthesis
of existing climate research knowledge, focusing on the evidence
of a warming climate («virtually certain»), the global impacts, and the ways we might avert its most catastrophic effects.
Climate
science alive and well, say
experts Posted Sun Feb 21, 2010 4:27 pm AEDT Top scientists say climate
science is alive and well despite the scandal
of leaked emails in Britain and «glitches» in a report
by the UN climate change
panel.