http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-bse081204.php

British scientists viewed controversies as events, caused by
pre-existing dissenters within the community. The Swedish scientists
tended to think of controversies as a process, and of fully-fledged
'mavericks' as the dangerous result of a gradual positioning of
disenchanted scientists who ended up attacking a community to which they
no longer belonged.

British scientists felt it was crucial to avoid giving scientific
legitimacy to scientists that they described as 'mavericks' and that
their distancing from the scientific community was therefore necessary.
Swedish scientists thought that ousting of dissenting scientists only
served to exacerbate problems.

With the exception of university research, mechanisms for control of
outgoing material tended to be more elaborate and more strictly followed
in Britain, than in Sweden. British scientists also felt that a breach
of procedures would have graver consequences, than did their Swedish
peers.

British scientists viewed surveying of outgoing material and
communication of research as safety mechanisms in place for their own
protection, whereas Swedish interviewees to perceive such procedures as
a sign of increasing bureaucracy. British scientists felt a greater need
for claims to be 'watertight', imagining a potentially hostile response.

************************************************** **********************

It's a lot worse in the USA if the following link is anything to go by:

http://www.xasa.com/grupos/en/sci/ar...eo.earthquakes


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG