Quotes (2015) from Kevin R. Ryan and Paul Craig Roberts, about the murder of science (http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/02/17/guest-column-kevin-ryan-science-died-911/)
Kevin R. Ryan was discharged from working at the Underwriters Laboratories after he began inquiring about test results for construction materials used for building the World Trade Center. After their targeted destruction in 2001, he and others actively continue to investigate and question the validity of the government’s examinations and official explanation for that signal event in our country. He has published several books about 9/11, and now co-edits several journals focused on that dramatic day (see: http://digwithin.net/about/ ).
Paul Craig Roberts is a very sharp and outspoken writer covering many topics about the economy, politics, history, and modern society, both in the United States (U.S.) and the world. He acquired much inside knowledge about how our national government works during his earlier service as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy (1981-82). Dr. Roberts holds a Ph.D. in Economics (University of Virginia), and has published many incisive books. His website, “Institute for Political Economy” (see: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org ), issues his perceptive examinations and forthright conclusions for many current events and the difficult problems we all face.
A very recent essay by Kevin Ryan, entitled “How Science Died on 9/11” (see: http://digwithin.net ), forms the core for Dr. Roberts’ thoughts about the viability of science in the modern U.S. (see: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/02/17/guest-column-kevin-ryan-science-died-911/ ). Both authors feel that science in America died after the 9/11 catastrophe when it was murdered by the numerous research scientists remaining silent about the many contradictions and false evidence for what really did occur and what could not have happened on that tragic day. If research scientists fail to stay 100% honest then they have forsaken the main ideal of science (i.e., a search for the truth); there can be no such thing as partial or part-time honesty for scientists. Ryan characterizes the government’s evidence and conclusions as involving “pseudo-science”, rather than real science.
For several years, a slowly increasing number of engineers, architects, and physical scientists have joined together to dispute the truth of the official explanations proposed for 9/11 by the U.S. federal government (see: “Science at 9/11” at: http://www.ae911truth.org). Ryan and Roverts believe that some or many of the other American scientists must have: (1) foresaken their search for the truth, (2) knowingly espoused false conclusions, or (3) remained silent about the scientific and engineering evidence supporting demolition as the true cause for the collapse of the 3 buildings on 9/11.
Roberts then goes even further, by ascribing the unexpected silence of many scientists to the facts that: (1) science today can be bought, (2) money now can determine results in science, and. (3) university research scientists all are totally dependent during their career upon the continued flow of research grant money from the governmental science agencies, and therefore they dare not dispute the methods or conclusions of the official governmental investigation of 9/11.
Both authors conclude that science now is dead in the U.S. Ryan and Roberts use their own analysis and critical reasoning to come to many of the same conclusions about the dismal health of modern science that I described earlier (see: “Could Science and Research now be Dying?” ). Although I do believe that science now is dying, I must reject their all-encompassing conclusion that science is dead, because some good researchers do continue their productive search for new truth and thereby are making important new advances in science and technology. Thus, I feel that science is in a morbid state, but is not yet dead. Nevertheless, I must agree with their contention that most or all otherwise good scientists have not protested or spoken out about the falsity of research and the trashing of standards for total honesty in science, with regard to finding the true causes of the events on 9/11. Truth no longer matters for modern science as much as does money; it is indeed very sad that today money is supreme at modern universities (see “Money now is Everything in Scientific Research at Universities” ), thereby badly undercutting the integrity of university science.
Kevin Ryan should be complimented for his courageous questioning about the many scientific and engineering findings that contradict the official conclusions for what happened on 9/11. Paul Craig Roberts emphasizes exactly what is wrong with today’s university science in the U.S. Clearly, the misuse of money has made traditional science so hard to pursue with honestly that it has either murdered or mortally wounded scientific research. These 2 authors should be praised for realizing the bad consequences of money upon being totally honest in science, and for forcefully bringing public attention to the vigorous dispute about what is true and what is false concerning 9/11. Eventually, everyone else will recognize both the unpleasant truth about 9/11, and the bad consequences of the current morbid decay in science.
The first part of this essay (see: “Part I” ) described the growing number of foreign graduate students now immigrating into the United States (U.S.). They first study for a doctoral degree in science, followed by postdoctoral training, and then obtain a professional science job in U.S. universities and industries. Part II will (1) examine what this situation means for U.S. science now and in the future, (2) identify the ultimate cause of this worrisome development, and, (3) explain how this problematic condition can best be resolved.
What does this situation mean for the future of science in the U.S.?
Judgments of the balance between the positive and negative aspects of this new situation (see: “Part I” ) are quite uncertain. Discussions about the quality and results of these immigrants always are difficult. Nevertheless, important questions must be discussed! My views here will be given about the following prominent questions. (1) How does this situation affect the quality of science and scientists in the U.S.? (2) To what extent does this situation decrease the number of graduates from U.S. colleges choosing to pursue advanced studies in science? (3) What does this mean for the future of science in the U.S.?
Regarding the effects upon science of the numerous foreign graduate students immigrating into the U.S., problems with intellectual maturity, skills with independent design of experiments and research manipulations, and, misguided practices in professional ethics, all seem to me to be rather equivalent between the foreign and domestic populations. Thus, there is not much negative influence on the quality of scientists resulting from the added population of foreign students studying science in U.S. graduate schools.
The question about whether the many foreign graduate students now here is influencing the decision of native-born college graduates not to enter a career in science is paralleled by another open question about whether the entrance of new foreign doctoral scientists into faculty positions in U.S. universities and high positions in U.S. industries makes native college graduates less likely to want to work with their foreign-born associates in science. I feel that the answer to both these questions is “probably not yet”, because this situation is still at a fairly early stage of development. Such questions currently are more a worry for the future, and are not so acute at present. However, when there will be more research positions and science jobs having mostly or even exclusively foreign-born U.S.-trained scientists, then these questions will rise to the top of the pile.
The future of science in the U.S. seems likely to be badly impacted as soon as the present situation matures and evolves with even greater numbers of foreign graduate students. Many unpleasant questions about hidden policies and confused practices then will arise for the 2 populations of young scientists (e.g., should either population ever be favored, who is in charge, should some number of research grants be reserved for awarding to either population, is there really equal opportunity for acquiring research grants, is there really equal opportunity for advancement in industry, who exactly is foreign, how do foreigners differ from native citizens, should members of any ethnic group be forbidden to review research grant applications submitted by others in the same group, do all university faculty have to give lectures and to teach in undergraduate and graduate courses, etc.). All of these queries deserve to be fully discussed.
In my opinion, the very biggest and most important problem with the enlarging population of young foreign graduate students is are they now causing a decrease in the already weak interest of young Americans to enter a career in science? If carried to extreme, some aspects of science in the U.S. then could become the exclusive domain of certain foreigners. Nobody knows to what extent this already is happening now, due to the lack of surveys and data. However, I believe that if such an imbalanced arrangement causes fewer American college students to want to study science, then that will have really bad effects upon the future of U.S. science
What exactly might happen?
Part I only indicated in a rather gentle way the present degree to which this worrisome new trend has taken hold within the U.S. Let us now look more closely at just how this peculiar situation could enlarge and mature in the near future. I have seen some science labs in U.S. universities where there were outstanding graduate students and Postdocs, originating both from abroad and from the U.S. I also actually have observed with my own eyes an active faculty laboratory with numerous foreign graduate students and postdocs, where there was not even one individual science worker born in the U.S. These young foreign workers all were from the same country, and were working under a full professor originating from that same land. This scenario is a notable situation that could become more frequent in the U.S.; I regard this to be both unhealthy and inappropriate. All readers should be able to perceive that U.S.-born college graduates might not feel very comfortable working within such a research laboratory; that feeling is not due to racism, but comes from normal human nature for not wanting to be the “odd man out”.
The most extreme extent for this worrisome development is best illustrated by the amazing story of a certain School of Engineering and Technology in the U.S. which I myself have personally observed. I was told that over 75% of their graduate students are from the same foreign country, and that this School is much better known inside that country than is the very prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology! Everyone suspects that before any doctoral candidate graduates, they must make arrangements for a new young student from their foreign undergraduate school or home town to send in an application for admission to this graduate program. This unofficial policy is the basis for an especially successful business operation! It results in that institution always getting lots of tuition since it never has the problem with decreasing enrollments now found in many other U.S. university schools, and always is able to produce many theses, patents, and professional research publications. The level of success and its momentum in this very real example are so great that there would be no bad effects stemming from any future changes in economic or political conditions.
I do not doubt that this special mechanism for ensuring the continuing success of a graduate school will be emulated and adopted by other universities. This same educational institution now has been publicly noted to have over 90% of its graduate students in Electrical Engineering coming from foreign lands in 2013 ! Even more shocking is the fact that there were 6 other universities and technology institutes in the U.S. with a similar very high percentage for this discipline ! Thus, the prediction given in the first sentence of this paragraph now has come true! Yes, the future already is here!
Who or what should be blamed for this problematic situation?
Foreign graduate students are not to be blamed for this new situation, since they are simply taking advantage of the available opportunity to get educated and find a good job in science here. Foreign postdocs appointed to new a professional position in U.S. universities or industries also are not to be blamed, since they are winning an open competition for these jobs. Foreign governments should not be blamed for facilitating the movement of their young students into U.S. graduate schools and jobs, since that helps young scientists from their country gain valuable education and income not otherwise available.
Some feel that blame should be given to the federal and state governments in the U.S., because these are approving the expenditure of money collected from American taxpayers to support the education of foreign graduate students. It is not clear to me why these government offices award money to support foreign graduate students in science. I have no doubt that many US taxpayers disapprove of any such use of their contributions. Why don’t foreign governments pay for their students to come here for advanced education?
Who then should be blamed? To determine that we must look back to find the primary cause of this entire situation. It is very clear to me that the ultimate cause of this condition is the rejection of entering a career in science by current American college students. In turn, that creates the gap in graduate school enrollments. The numerous unfilled slots for training domestic graduate students in science then are filled by eager young foreign college-level students because Nature abhors a vacuum! We must blame whatever is inducing American college students to reject a career in science.
Many undergraduates now choose not to enter graduate schools for advanced training in science. Students indeed are clever, and many now in U.S. colleges are easily able to perceive some of the serious reasons why so many university science faculty are very upset with their current job condition. That stems from the misguided policies of U.S. universities and the research grant system. Hence, I believe that it is those 2 entities, (1) modern universities, and (2) agencies in the research grant system, which must be blamed for the secondary problems arising from there being so many new foreign graduate students studying and doing science in the U.S..
What is the best approach to solve this problem?
Identification of the primary cause means that the best solution to this entire problem now is obvious: American students need to be much better attracted to enter a career in science. The best way to accomplish that is to reform the several major job problems making many faculty scientists conducting research in U.S. universities being so distressed, dissatisfied, and dismayed (see: “Why are University Scientists Increasingly Upset with their Job, Part I” , and also “Part II” ). If science and universities in the U.S. can be repaired and renewed from their present degenerated and decayed condition (see: “Could Science and Research Now be Dying?” ), then many college undergraduates in the US will no longer be so repulsed from entering a career in science. In turn, with more domestic college graduates entering graduate schools to study science, there then will result in many fewer openings needing to be filled by foreign graduate students.
Concluding remarks for Parts I and II.
The population of numerous foreign graduate students now immigrating into the U.S. has both positive and negative effects on American science. Much more attention must be given to fully understanding all the different aspects of this modern situation.
Foreign graduate students studying in the U.S. for a doctoral degree in science now function very usefully to maintain ongoing university operations by substituting for the decreasing numbers of American students entering science studies. Of course, these immigrants later compete directly with their domestic counterparts for science jobs in U.S. universities and industries.
The ultimate cause of the large increase in foreign graduate students moving into the U.S. to study for a Ph.D. in science is the decreasing number of U.S. undergraduates now choosing not to enter graduate school for starting a career in science. The best and most effective solution to this problematic situation will be to make careers in scientific research much more attractive to young American college students.
Modern science certainly is a very international activity. The worldwide interactions of scientists, science educators, and science students produce many beneficial outcomes for everyone, but some recent aspects must be considered problematic. Let’s now take a closer look at those.
Many foreign students now are studying here at graduate schools to earn their Ph.D. in science. They are following a very long global tradition in science and education. Most of them are not able to get good research training for a science Ph.D. in their native land, so they undertake to do that in other countries having strong activity in scientific research, such as Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, U.K., and the United States (U.S.). Postdoctoral research associates also frequently come to these countries for advanced training in scientific research. Through these educational programs, the U.S. or other host countries have been seen to substantially help other nations to expand and develop their own activities for science. Previously, these foreign students and postdocs were either expected or required to return to their native land for subsequent employment. The young foreign scientists returning to their native country usually found good jobs at universities, research institutes, industries, or government; this arrangement helped the home countries greatly, and even has led some of them to set up scholarship programs to sponsor and facilitate such studies abroad.
The traditional situation with foreign graduate students in science recently has changed in the U.S. There now is a general pattern that after young foreign graduate scientists earn their Ph.D. in science here, they then stay on for postdoctoral training and subsequently work in a good science job in the U.S. for the remainder of their life. Currently, most foreign-born graduate students and postdocs now come here with little intention to ever return to their native country, except for vacations. Instead, they aim to stay here and have access to more and better jobs, along with more and bigger research grants supporting their scientific investigations; both of these are not so available in their native country. Many foreign students entering with some sort of student visa now openly are immigrants, since they strive to elevate their visa status or to change their citizenship very soon after arriving here.
In 2013, there were reported to be 71,418 foreign graduate students enrolled in U.S. graduate schools . That represents a 10% increase in this population over the previous academic year . Of course, not all of these graduate students are studying science, and some are only working for a Masters Degree.
Although there is no question at all that most of these science students and researchers from abroad work hard and do good work here, this modern change raises several disturbing questions. I purposely will ignore some common complaints about foreigners not speaking English very well, and not understanding how to design good experiments, since those qualities vary greatly among the many different individuals. Instead, I will deal here with important questions about whole populations (i.e., we will mostly be looking at forests, and not so much at individual trees); these important questions are not frequently discussed in terms of general trends.
Part I of this essay describes this new condition with numerous foreign science students immigrating into the U.S., examines its consequences, and discusses questions that are not asked openly. Part II then will take a closer look at what this new situation could lead to, what it means for American science, what is its ultimate cause, and how this modern problem can best be resolved. Readers should note that both Parts focus on graduate students, and not on undergraduate students.
What are the consequences of having so many foreign graduate students in the U.S.?
The situation just described certainly has both good and bad consequences. Most foreign graduate students are successful with their pre-doctoral research work, thereby helping their mentor, their host institution, and science in the U.S. The large inflow of foreign graduate students into universities in the U.S. fills a vacuum created by the diminishing number of young Americans now choosing to study for a career in science; modern universities now have become very dependent upon the growing population of entering foreign graduate students to maintain their full enrollments. The vigor of the grant-supported research enterprise in the U.S. strongly needs more foreign postdoctoral research associates, since the supply of new domestic Ph.D.s in science is not large enough for the demand; the research success of foreign postdocs greatly contributes to U.S. science, and prepares them for subsequent productive employment. These immigrants later gain employment here, and many continue as successful professional researchers in universities and industries. Some achieve such exemplary success with doing high quality innovative scientific research that they even very deservedly win a Nobel Prize (e.g., Prof. Ahmed H. Zewail (California Institute of Technology), Nobel Laureate in Chemistry (1999) ; also see: “Scientists Tell us About their Life and Work, Part 3, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar” ).
For science in the U.S., this modern situation is very positive since it increases both the number of practicing professional researchers and the total output of published research works. In addition, it ensures full enrollments for most graduate schools in the U.S. However, certain other consequences of this condition seem to be both negative and worrisome. The effects of this situation upon native-born graduate students and holders of science faculty jobs in U.S. universities are quite controversial. Discussions already have debated whether foreign-born graduate students crowd out and displace their native-born counterparts when seeking a postdoctoral position or a full-time science job. In the future, the effects of the growing large immigrant population probably will become increasingly negative. Since a greater number of foreigners now competes with their domestic counterparts for the same job openings, the foreign population of applicants thereby will have some advantage if all else is equal. When applying for a faculty job opening in a university science department where there already are many foreign-born members of the science faculty, the new graduates from certain lands undoubtedly will be favored over those born in the U.S. It also is likely that some American college students now are less enthusiastic about entering certain university graduate schools because they feel they would not fit in readily with all the foreign professors and foreign students there.
Questions that need to be discussed.
Asking polite or impolite questions about the policies, problems, and peculiarities involving young foreign scientists in U.S. university graduate schools is made very difficult by 3 different factors. (1) Faculty scientists at some very prestigious U.S. universities now openly visit certain other countries every year to recruit new graduate students; thus, this new system is being promoted and progressively locked into the status quo, just as has been done already for undergraduate students in colleges. (2) Cheating on applications for admission to graduate schools, and during long-distance telephone interviews, not only occurs, but is well-accepted in some foreign cultures; this corruption is not always uncovered, and then increases the level of dishonesty within American science (see: “Why would Any Scientist ever Cheat?” ). (3) Modern precepts for political correctness try to preclude any discussion of different characteristics for national origin and intelligence, such that any and all questions now are deemed to be very impolite and improper; I believe everything needs to be discussed more, and do not recognize any such restrictions.
The most important key questions about this entire situation can be phrased as follows. Are young American students being denied participation in U.S. graduate schools and postdoctoral positions because the slots for admission already are filled by their foreign counterparts? Are new American doctoral scientists being denied employment at universities because faculty job openings already are filled by newly-degreed and newly-hired young foreign scientists? Are funds from US taxpayers collected and issued by the federal and state governments being used to support foreign graduate students and postdocs for their education and research training here?
I regret that I cannot answer the first 2 questions because there appears to be no adequate data or surveys with which to analyze all possibilities for this situation. For the third question, I know that some private and public schools do provide financial support for graduate students in science, regardless of their national origin; it is likely that some or even all of these funds come from American taxpayers and donors. That ongoing practice seems very questionable.
Why am I addressing these questions now?
Many readers undoubtedly will jump to the conclusion that I must be very prejudiced against all foreigners and especially against young foreign scientists in training. That just ain’t so! Two of my own postdoctoral associates were born in foreign countries (Japan, and Italy). They both worked hard and produced outstanding research work in my laboratory; it was very satisfying to see them succeed at research, and was fun to work with them. Both returned to their native land to start professional employment with a new job opportunity in science. My actual general prejudice always is to seek higher quality regardless of national origin or irrelevant individual characteristics. Some foreign-born students and postdocs most certainly have a very high quality; since I know that some American students and young scientists also have a very high quality, I am looking at the questions given above only to make certain that the domestic young scientists are not being put at some disadvantage by this new situation.
I raise these questions because they are very important. The large number of foreign graduate students now moving into the U.S. is rarely discussed, clearly is increasing, and needs to have its negative implications challenged. If no questions are asked, then this situation will only expand to become more troubling. The best place to start getting the negative effects of this situation analyzed will be in collecting numerical data for each branch of science in the entire U.S.; to the best of my knowledge adequate data are not yet available. Nobody can hope to draw solid conclusions or recommendations until the extent of this situation and its effects are much better known.
The cause, consequences, and best solution for this problematic new situation in U.S. science will be further examined in the forthcoming second portion of this essay.
A scholarly search for the truth, obtained by observation and experimental studies, often involves obtaining detailed data to test one or more hypotheses. Ideally, experimental studies answer a research question in a complete and unambiguous manner that is consistent with other known results. Research always is chancy, and the expected results are not always obtained even when well-designed experiments are conducted by experienced scientists.
Good research uses well-designed experiments, includes adequate controls, and leads to solid interpretations. The conclusions drawn from good research enable accurate predictions to be made, and can easily be related to existing bodies of other knowledge. Future experiments can build successfully upon what is established from good research.
Bad research is the opposite of good research. It results from poorly designed experiments, and can feature incomplete or inadequate controls. The conclusions drawn from bad research usually are later shown to be completely or partly invalid; they make only incorrect predictions, and are inconsistent with other bodies of knowledge. The results from bad research often are not repeatable, and form a defective basis for any further studies.
Good versus bad research.
All scientists hope to conduct good research. Typical questions for judging research quality include the following: (1) are the experiments well-designed and properly conducted; (2) are the controls fully adequate; (3) are the data complete; (4) are the data and their interpretations self-consistent; (5) do the experimental data support the conclusions of the research study; (6) are the conclusions consistent with other data and known facts; and, (7) do these experiments answer the selected research question(s)? Failure or insufficiency in any of these parameters is a typical sign of bad research.
The judgemnent of research quality needs to be distinguished from several related evaluations. Quality of research is distinguished from quality of the research subject (e.g., either good or bad research investigations can be conducted on how to add multivitamins to a metropolitan water supply), and from good or bad usage of the research findings (e.g., good chemical research might later be utilized to make some extremely toxic new complex). Experimental results supporting a well-known theory or popular concept do not necessarily mean that this research is good; similarly, experimental studies that contradict or do not agree with some well-established theory are not necessarily bad.
Research in any branch or category of science can be judged to be good or bad. In general, judgements of research quality do not have any intermediate levels. These determinations are made in basic or applied research, theoretical or experimental research, small or giant studies, field or laboratory research, simple or complex research, etc. As one example, consider a modern research study of butterflies inside Columbia, which finds that one species there is simultaneously present in Argentina. Assume here that detailed morphological measurements, molecular genetics, and field observations were conducted properly, etc., and that all data show complete taxonomic identity, while other species in Argentina lack identity. Although there is no obvious usefulness in this discovery, it is a clear example of good research in basic science.
Who exactly best determines.whether research is good or bad? Here, a critical judgement is sought, and not a casual opinion. Since the necessary very careful evaluation of the experiments involved in any research project can be quite complex, this determination is best made by knowledgeable experts (i.e., other scientists). This judgement must be made objectively without regard to personal interest or emotional preferences.
Who utilizes the judgement of good vs. bad research?
The critical evaluation of research quality is part of several major job activities for university scientists, including determining priority scores for research grant applications and proposals, and, examination of manuscripts submitted for publication in a science journal. In both cases, peer review utilizes the evaluation by scientists who have expertise in the same area as the applicant or author.
Peer review of proposals and applications for financial support of research aims to make judgements be as objective as possible . To determine fundability, the design of experiments, adequacy of controls, methods for data analysis, and ability to answer the research questions proposed first are evaluated. The final conclusion for fundability also utilizes certain other criteria besides determining whether the research is good or bad (e.g., capability to answer the selected research questions, chances for success of the project in the time period proposed, previous training and experience with the methodologies used, atmosphere at the institution, track record of the applicant for success in previous research projects, relevancy to program targets, use of undergraduate students or special groups of people, research safety considerations (e.g., exposure to disease agents, toxins, or radioactive materials, etc.). A listing of official criteria for evaluating merit in the very numerous research grant applications sent to the National Institutes of Health (see: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/critiques/rpg.htm) or to the National Science Foundation (see: http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2011/meritreviewcriteria.pdf) are published at periodic intervals.
Not all manuscripts submitted to science journals are accepted for publication. To determine publishability, the journal editor and assigned referees first take a critical look at whether the research reported is good or bad, and then examine the conclusions drawn from the experimental data. If their evaluations conclude that something is missing, the experiments are poorly designed, controls are inadequate, interpretations are not supported, data are incomplete, the subject area is not relevant to the journals’s focus, etc., then a manuscript will be rejected. The critical comments are relayed to the authors so they can try to make the needed additions, deletions, and other changes; after consideration of the revised manuscript, a final decision about publishability then is made and reported to the authors.
What can go wrong with judging good vs. bad research?
There are quite a few possibilities where the examination of research quality can go wrong. Selection of reviewers with insufficient expertise excourages mistakes to be made. Selection of scientists as reviewers who are unable to put aside the fact that they are competing with the applicant for research grant awards also leads to unfortunate mistakes. In the modern era, time is very precious for all research scientists working at universities; doing a rush job with evaluating research quality saves time, but increases the chance of making mistakes. As personal integerity decreases, there is increased likelihood that rigor of this important task for making objective evaluations is not maintained (e.g., ignoring some defect for a friend, colleague at the same institution, or former associate). In other cases, rigor is undercut by the unethical desire to please someone or to trade favors (e.g., “I will overlook this mistake in your manuscript if you do the same when you review my manuscripts!”). The agencies awarding research grants take explicit steps to try to preclude these improper diversions from good ethical practices; most professional science journals require at least two independent expert reviewers to critically examine each manuscript, in order to decrease the chance that any mistaken or improper judgement will be made.
Determination of good versus bad research can be made readily using standardized criteria for evaluating the quality of the experiments, particularly if this review is performed by several experts. These detailed evaluations must be done very carefully, and demand the critical capabilities of other expert scientists working in the same area. These peer evaluations constitute a major part of the review process for applications seeking research grant support, and of manuscripts submitted to science journals for publication. Determining the quality of research is not identical to determining the quality of science (i.e., good research can be part of bad science, and vice versa). Critical determinations of research quality are important to help science be rigorous, objective, and meaningful.