Peer Review Devalued
Handling the response to the noise report for the Kingston Board of Health (released on April 16, 2015), the Consensus Building Institute (CBI) issued a “Summary of Public Input on Draft Kingston Wind Independence Turbine Acoustical Monitoring Study – Technical Report.” Rather than take advantage of a technical peer review by Stephen Ambrose, a Board Certified acoustician, the CBI merged comments of many parties into a single list. Ambrose responded with a pointed email to the CBI, MassCEC, MassDEP and HMMH, protesting the way that his analyses were presented:
Letter to Nils Bolgen MassCEC, Stacie Smith Consensus Building Institute, Douglas Fine MassDEP, Christopher Menge HMMH from Stephen Ambrose
I submitted six letters addressing critical KWI study “errors and omissions”.
I object to having my analysis letters destroyed by selective edits and chart removals.
The acoustic study has potential merit; so far, the review process is a scientific charade, a mockery of acoustic expertise, and a travesty of professional ethics.
An acoustic study that dismisses substantive peer-review analysis is unacceptable.
Stephen E. Ambrose, ASA, INCE Board Certified