by Did67 » 19/07/18, 15:06
And here is the "fake science"
You will be warned!
Extract from an article published in Le Monde:
Global Alert to False Science
Dozens of scientific journals produce and publish unscrupulous studies, which are then found in databases used by experts.
The list of "predatory journals" is controversial: a gray area exists between poor reputation journals and fraudulent publications.
Knowledge, either, is not immune to counterfeiting. The share of "false science" in world scientific production has increased considerably over the past decade, and no sign of pause seems to be on the horizon.
In a collaboration called "Fake science" and formed of fifteen international media, including the Norddeutscher Rundfunk (NDR), Süddeutsche Zeitung, The New Yorker or Aftenposten, Le Monde investigated the extent and the impact of this phenomenon, which does not spare France.
What can counterfeit science look like? For the past decade, dozens of unscrupulous publishers like Omics and Science Domain (India), Waset (Turkey) and Scientific Research Publishing (China) have created hundreds of open-access journals with the buzzy name, having all attires true scholarly journals.
But unlike these, these newspapers do not have an editorial committee, they charge fees to researchers - on the order of a few hundred euros per article - and publish the "work" without control and very quickly. They do not submit the manuscripts of the research papers they receive to the peer review. This quality control process, prior to any scholarly publication, is one of the key steps in the construction of science.
The same mechanism exists for scientific conferences: often solicited by email, researchers register, for a fee, to present their work. But there is often no one - or not many - to listen to these mock lectures.
Note that this is one of the ways used by agribusiness to "drown" serious studies raising problems with molecules used by pesticides ...
Take the case of a molecule A, which 7 serious studies show is a carcinogen.
The manufacturer teams up with highly paid "pseudo-scientists", who do bogus studies that no one checks, published in the paid journals we are talking about here [they don't care, since they are highly paid].
And when we do a “meta-analysis”, given that 7 studies concluded with toxicity and 127 with harmlessness, we conclude that: “molecule A is a possible carcinogen” ... And then the manufacturer's lobbyists make foam this information ... Possible does not mean certain ... There is such and such a study that "proves" [they don't put quotes, they are lobbyists, not truth-loving people] that the molecule is harmless ... The studies which "prove" that it is carcinogenic, they are activists ... Etc ... The disorder is sown ... No one believes that it is dangerous ...
Note, to be precise, that it also works in the other direction. Militant studies not very supported or not supported at all, which concludes that such a nontoxic molecule is dangerous !!!
In a world where no more rules are respected, anything is possible! And also its opposite!
2 x
Thanks to an initial scientific training (non-biological) and your tremendous work of extension I understand (finally!) What is the use of putting hay, why not work the soil and the dangers to do it, laze, how the soil works and the food chain that feeds before feeding us via the vegetables grown. Exciting for me. Renting for a month with a friend a garden in an allotment garden association, all we have left to do is put into practice 
we have to find hay and bring it there.
