http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/PDF/ShortPeerReviewGuide.pdf
Here’s part of it:
“SUMMARY
•Science has a system for assessing the quality of research before
it is published. This system is called peer review.
•Peer review means that other scientific experts in the field
check research papers for validity, significance and originality–
and for clarity.
•Editors of scientific journals draw on a large pool of suitable
experts to scrutinise papers before deciding whether to publish
them.
•Many of the research claims you read in newspapers and
magazines, find on the internet, or hear on television and the
radio are not published in a peer-reviewed journal.
•Some of this research may turn out to be good but much of it is
flawed or incomplete. Many reported findings, such as claims
about “wonder cures” and “new dangers”, never come to anything.
•Unpublished research is no help to anyone. Scientists can’t repeat
or use it and as a society we can’t base decisions about our public
safety – or our family’s health for example – on work that has a
high chance of being flawed.
•So, no matter how exciting or compelling new scientific or medical
research is, you must always ask…
Is it peer reviewed? If not, why not?
If it is peer reviewed, you can look for more information on what
other scientists say about it, the size and approach of the study and
whether it is part of a body of evidence pointing towards the same
conclusions. sense about science

I also loved the way the reporter dismissed the “controversy” as “political”.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing “political” about the discredited “hypothesis” that mercury causes autism. No political party has expressed a potition on autism, let alone mercury causing autism.

Yet, the fact that nearly 100% of the scientific and medical community does not see a connection between mercury and autism is “political”. The fact that study after study has found no connection between autism and mercury is “political”.

Funny, I didn’t see that on my ballot the last time I voted.

Prometheus

My latin is rusty–but isn’t that what they call in the biz a “non-sequitur”?

It is a “highly conterversial” medical topic. It is a “highly controversial” science topic. That is what parents should be concentrating on. The problem is, the parents who are asking these questions don’t like the answers. The controversy is between “parents and science” as noted in the omnibus hearings.

Now, that was being polite. In the end, that minority of parents are why it is political. To say that they could care less about the politics is strange to say the least.