Following my original post on the future jobs report last week, a few other blogs have published their views on the quality of research conducted by Fast Future.
The Nanoclast picked up on my original post, while EvidenceMatters conducted their own detailed investigation into the social science methods used in the report. Though I focussed on the list of 20 jobs, Evidence Matters went further, producing a formal report sent to the department for business, innovation and skills who fund the Science: So What? campaign.
They point out that many of the jobs listed already exist, while others are simply implausible.
Gimpy’s blog today strongly criticises Fast Future’s description of the job of “body-part maker”, again finding the referencing of source material to be wholly inadequate.
Also this morning, HolfordWatch published a response from the department of business, innovation and skills. Even though the flaws highlighted here and by other blogs are a select few, representative of the quality throughout the report, BIS stand by it, describing it as “rigorous and credible”. The clearly have a different definition of rigour and credibility in mind.
I can’t see how this report helps the SSW campaign in any way. Who is going to study science to follow their dream of becoming a quarantine enforcer? It’s hard to find anything positive to say about it. Credit for trying?
I’ve offered the head of Fast future the chance to reply to our concerns on this site, which he has so far declined. The offer stands.
Update: PodBlackCat has also commented on this story here