Not a lot of faith in academia eh?

Post #311,563 by jake123 7/23/09 12:54:04 PM Reply	Not a lot of faith in academia eh? and all those academicians in countries where their salary doesn't depend on what they say... we can ignore them 'cause they're not American.
Post #311,569 by boxley 7/23/09 1:40:03 PM Reply	Re: Not a lot of faith in religion eh? and all those co-religionists in countries where their salary doesn't depend on what they say... we can ignore them 'cause they're not American.
Post #311,579 by beepster 7/23/09 2:06:47 PM 7/23/09 2:07:03 PM Reply	Their research funding (hence salary) does depend on what they say. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill. Edited by beepster July 23, 2009, 02:07:03 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #311,581 by drook 7/23/09 2:31:07 PM Reply	But that doesn't affect what they say No more than medical insurance billing policies affect care decisions. Oops sorry, that was Box making that argument. -- Drew
Post #311,582 by boxley 7/23/09 2:36:23 PM Reply	cant have it both ways either exxon funded research is just as valid as algore funded research or both are crapaud and I have been around enough so called government biologists to know there is a huge bias thanx, bill
Post #311,588 by drook 7/23/09 2:48:42 PM Reply	Nuance, heard of it? There's space between "just as valid" and "both are crapaud". In general, people who are primarily interested in "the greater good" are more likely to choose government work over corporate. Yes, there are plenty of people in it for the power -- and pursuit of power is interchangeable with pursuit of money. You seem to believe that "just money" is not enough to influence behavior. Corporate funded research causes no conflict of interest, and medical reimbursement policies never affect treatment decisions. But somehow decisions made in service of government or academic goals are always suspect, and assumed to be part of an "agenda". (And somehow "agenda" is code for, "Those socialist eggheads want to tell me how to live my life.") -- Drew
Post #311,590 by boxley 7/23/09 2:50:24 PM Reply	s/socialist//g
Post #311,586 by beepster 7/23/09 2:46:43 PM Reply	bill,..no bill, or was it bill what were we talking about??? Oh...healthcare...global warming... pre law, pre med..what's the difference? ;-) I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #311,587 by boxley 7/23/09 2:48:04 PM Reply	7 years of collitch down the drain
Post #311,596 by Another Scott 7/23/09 3:58:37 PM Reply	If you've got charges you want to make, be specific. The whole point of peer-review is to try to make science objective by separating fact and true explanations from opinion. Does it always work that way, of course not. If you have some evidence that the research funded by the government at universities and government laboratories is intrinsically swayed to generate particular outcomes by political considerations, you should present it. Otherwise, you should withdraw the bogus charge. Cheers, Scott.
Post #311,604 by beepster 7/23/09 4:32:36 PM Reply	That goes both ways, now doesn't it? I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #311,607 by Another Scott 7/23/09 4:52:32 PM Reply	No, in fact, it doesn't. Back up your charge, or withdraw it. Regards, Scott.
Post #311,609 by beepster 7/23/09 4:58:13 PM Reply	Whoo...demanding today, aren't we? I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #311,610 by Another Scott 7/23/09 5:02:24 PM Reply	You've been bouncing up and down on raw nerves... ;-)
Post #311,612 by beepster 7/23/09 5:09:22 PM Reply	Re: You've been bouncing up and down on raw nerves... ;-) http://scienceandpub...r_innovation.html One of many places that I see questions raised about research funding. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #311,621 by Another Scott 7/23/09 5:45:08 PM Reply	Is there something specific there that supports your claim? Picking articles cited by Lew Rockwell isn't the greatest way to make your point... "Questions raised about research funding" is not evidence that federally funded research gives slanted outcomes. What I see in my skimming of that article are some quote fragments and some unsupported sweeping generalizations. Please don't make me read your mind and do your research for you.... Something like this, from your cite? Ethics of Writing Grant Proposals Ethics in science and society "describe appropriate behavior according to contemporary standards" (Friedman, 1996). Two standards that scientists follow for writing grant proposals are: 1) Keep it safe and survive, and 2) DonÂt lie if you donÂt have to. Pollack (2005) addresses the first ethic, noting that the paramount motivational factor for scientists today is the competition to survive. A scientistÂs most pressing need, which supersedes the scientific pursuit of truth, is to get her grant funded Â to pay her salary and that of her staff, to pay department bills, and to obtain academic promotion. The safest way to generate grants is to avoid any dissent from orthodoxy. Grant-review Study Sections whose membersÂ expertise and status are tied to the prevailing view do not welcome any challenge to it. A scientist who writes a grant proposal that dissents from the ruling paradigm will be left without a grant. Speaking for his fellow scientists Pollack writes, "We have evolved into a culture of obedient sycophants, bowing politely to the high priests of orthodoxy." "Keep it safe" is not a way to get funding these days. "Don't lie if you don't have to" is always operative. Pollack (2005) is an opinion piece. He doesn't present any evidence. In fact, one could regard that article in 2 ways. 1) Sour grapes: The thoughts contained herein arise in part from my experience as a frequent dissenter from prevailing orthodoxy, and in part from my experiences attending workshops convened to address problems with granting systems. Inevitably, such experiences generate ideas. In this case, they have brought modest insights into how granting systems might better serve transformative approaches that challenge the status quo. At present, such approaches have little chance of success. Yet they are the very ones that could bring spectacular advances. or 2) as arguing against his own thesis since his article was published even though it "dissents from prevailing orthodoxy". There is nothing that excites a good researcher more than discovering something new that goes against orthodoxy. There's nothing that excites someone at a funding agency more than supporting important new results that go against orthodoxy. The rub is that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. If you want to go against orthodoxy, you've got to be able to present very strong evidence to back it up. That's the way research works, and even more so when you're asking for public support. Competitive public support of research makes science better, not worse. Try again? Thanks. Cheers, Scott.
Post #311,623 by beepster 7/23/09 6:11:50 PM Reply	Something like.. Two climate astrophysicists, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, present evidence that shows the climate of the 20th century fell within the range experienced during the past 1,000 years. Compared with other centuries, it was not unusual (Soon and Baliunas, 2003). Unable to obtain grants from NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), Soon (personal communication, August 31, 2006) observes that NASA funds programs mainly on social-political reasoning rather than science. Sure, its an observation...but since you aren't going to have any lawsuits against the government...stories like this (consistently) and others like Box have pointed to should give you some pause in your absolutist view that government funded peer research cannot be tainted. Why is it so easy for you to say that if a company funds it, it is necessarily tainted yet when government funds it, it is necessarily pure? Philosophical question for you to chew on. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #311,624 by Another Scott 7/23/09 6:34:07 PM Reply	"The Government" doesn't review proposals - people do. 1. There is never enough money to fund all of the grant applications. 2. Independent volunteers review many/most of the federally funded grant applications, not "the government". 3. The 4th sentence is speculation. Applicants can find out the reason why their proposal was declined. E.g.: NSF - http://www.nsf.gov/p...nsf09_1/gpg_3.jsp In addition, if not otherwise provided in the panel summary, the PI is provided an explanation (written or telephoned) of the basis for the declination. A PI also may request and obtain any other releasable material in NSF's file on his/her proposal. Everything in the file, except information that identifies either reviewers or other pending or declined proposals is usually releasable to the PI. I'm sure the reason they were turned down was based on other than "social-political reasoning". That's not as sexy, though. Why is it so easy for you to say that if a company funds it, it is necessarily tainted yet when government funds it, it is necessarily pure? Philosophical question for you to chew on. Strawman much? Where did I say that? You're the one that (implicitly) made the claim that government funded researchers sway their results for political ends (as opposed to following the evidence) in #14719. Cheers, Scott.
Post #311,633 by beepster 7/23/09 8:43:24 PM Reply	Re: "The Government" doesn't review proposals - people do. "The whole point of peer-review is to try to make science objective by separating fact and true explanations from opinion." That's your statement. And further challenging my statement that both sides work the same, you implicitly are challenging one side versus the other..since you did not ask for a retraction of the corporate side of the argument. And yes, proposal are reviewed by people...people that, for the most part, work for the government. Certainly any explanation can be proffered on individual rejections, but when you see patterns developing (as was detailed in the article linked before)...the objectivity you speak of seems a bit less apparent. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #311,639 by Another Scott 7/23/09 9:39:59 PM Reply	You're wrong. 1) I responded to your post #14719 (see above). You didn't make a comparison there. You didn't say "both sides work the same" there. I addressed your comment about government funded research. 2) Present evidence that most reviewers "work for the government". Hint: They don't. The NSF, as I'm sure you're aware, is one of the most important sources of federal funds for research. http://www.nsf.gov/p...pg/nsf04_23/3.jsp All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Program Officers may obtain comments from assembled review panels or from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. It's similar at other federal agencies that fund research. 3) This "pattern" is a figment of your imagination. If you want a real example of some of the problems with evaluating research grant proposals, take a look at most of the comments in this Nature article on NIH reviews - http://www.nature.co...ews.2008.988.html The problem with evaluating government research grants isn't what you think it is. Federally funded research isn't slanted to arrive at some politically-correct or "orthodox" outcome. If it's not clear, I reject your habit of telling us (sometimes in retrospect) that "they're all the same". There are shades of gray in this world, and the arguments you too-often present ask us to throw out our brains. You can do much better than regurgitate freeper talking points. Cheers, Scott.
Post #311,641 by boxley 7/23/09 9:45:58 PM Reply	assuming since you are in DC you interact with scientists? In alaska the fed biologists are all crazed eco freaks that dont really understand the macro lifecycle of the various ecospheres they are responsible for using collated data to present their skewed agenda. The field folks are a mixed bag but the so called scientists that submit the reports to higherups for policy changes do have an ardent agenda. the state has the same problem but with the opposite agenda in the mean time people and the environment get trashed by stupid decisions on both the state and federal levels. Sorry I have seen government research up close and personal. Skewed badly. Now that may not be true of all government paid scientists but is enough to make me terminally suspicious of any study by the feds whether under dubya's watch or obama's.
Post #311,650 by Another Scott 7/23/09 10:45:13 PM Reply	Box loves him some anecdotes. :-) Just because you've come across "crazed eco freaks" who work for the federal government doesn't mean that all federally funded research is tainted. You know, probably better than most, about the importance of investment in research. The Internet would not exist today without federally funded research. Radar, lasers, RTGs (one of your favorites), satellite communications, etc., are all direct results of federally funded research. Obviously, I only know what I read in the papers about this, but this action by the EPA doesn't sound like those of an agency staffed exclusively with "crazed eco freaks" - http://www.adn.com/n...story/845874.html YMMV. Cheers, Scott.
Post #311,652 by boxley 7/23/09 10:57:00 PM Reply	you are quoting a crazed eco freak newspaper :-(
Post #311,653 by Another Scott 7/23/09 11:00:00 PM Reply	Would "Mudflats" work better? ;-)
Post #311,642 by beepster 7/23/09 9:47:33 PM Reply	Then go after this guy too "I agree with Peter that "There Will Be Blood". Unfortunately, a better system is unlikely to result from the resource wars. This is in at least part because those who are likely to administer the system are likely to be those who in some way rely on the funding provided by the same system. Furthermore, as though it wasn't already difficult to fund projects that deviate in any way from the common wisdom, it will become far harder to to fund novel and competitive approaches to problems. At the very least, it will be quite tricky to balance incentives with objectivity in choosing what to fund." You linked to it. Its what I've been saying and also the central theme of the link. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #311,648 by Another Scott 7/23/09 10:14:49 PM Reply	That's not "what you've been saying". You've been very clear in what you've been saying. I pointed out, multiple times, the problems I had with your comment. You may think you're saying more than you are, but your short (and not so sweet) posts don't say anywhere near as much as Peloquin did. I've been after you multiple times to "use more words", but it's your choice. And Peloquin gave nothing more than his opinion. And you'll note I said "most". Look at the comments from those who have actually served on review panels. Pleasing the political views of the reviewers does not enter into the decisions. As with any human endeavor, it's not perfect, but it works very well. Government-funded research is not intrinsically biased. Cheers, Scott.
Post #311,704 by beepster 7/24/09 3:47:55 PM Reply	And neither is corporate research. sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. there is no blanket. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #311,613 by boxley 7/23/09 5:10:24 PM Reply	Re: If you've got charges you want to make, be specific. http://oversight.hou...science/index.htm help yourself :-)
Post #311,622 by Another Scott 7/23/09 6:01:26 PM Reply	Is that somehow arguing against my post? The resulting report -- Politics and Science in the Bush Administration -- found numerous instances where the Administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings. These actions go far beyond the typical shifts in policy that occur with a change in the political party occupying the White House. Thirteen years ago, former President George H.W. Bush stated that Â[n]ow more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research . . . government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance.Â Today, President George W. BushÂs Administration has skewed this impartial perspective, generating unprecedented criticism from the scientific community and even from prominent Republicans who once led federal agencies. The AdministrationÂs political interference with science has led to misleading statements by the President, inaccurate responses to Congress, altered web sites, suppressed agency reports, erroneous international communications, and the gagging of scientists. The subjects involved span a broad range, but they share a common attribute: the beneficiaries of the scientific distortions are important supporters of the President, including social conservatives and powerful industry groups. That's very different from saying that scientists at federally funded institutions or scientists with federal grants were twisting the output of their research for political ends. If a scientist with a government grant is swayed by political agendas rather than evidence, then why would they need to be "gagged"? If their funding depends on satisfying the political whims of their funding agencies, or the "orthodoxy", then why would the Administration need to "manipulate" the process? Fact is, competitive government funded research is better protected from "orthodoxy" and political favoritism than any other kind. Try again? Cheers, Scott.
Post #311,635 by boxley 7/23/09 9:34:01 PM Reply	Re: Is that somehow arguing against my post? If a scientist with a government grant is swayed by political agendas rather than evidence, then why would they need to be "gagged"? http://www.recorder....ay.aspx?e=1638730 On March 12, in response to their concerns, Carlin and Davidson received an e-mail from their boss, Al McGartland, director of the EPA's National Centre for Environmental Economics, that due to tight timelines and "the turn of events," they were not to have "any direct communication with anyone outside of NCEE on endangerment (declaring carbon dioxide a pollutant). There should be no meetings, e-mails, written statements, phone calls, etc." when their science disagrees with the head scientist and as someone above states that all scientists should be created equally
Post #311,644 by Another Scott 7/23/09 10:03:44 PM Reply	I can't understand why I need to keep repeating myself. Some sort of disconnect... :-( 1. Beep says, or wants us to implictly accept, that federally funded research gives slanted results because "their pay depends" on government approval. 2. Boxley cites articles saying that researchers were punished by political appointees because their research didn't support the views of the political appointees and/or administration. If Beep is right, then #2 shouldn't happen because the researchers automatically want to make their government overlords happy. If Box is right, then the researchers are not doing what Beep claims they automatically do, since if they were then they wouldn't need to be punished - the results would already be to their overlord's liking. You can't have it both ways. Either federally funded research is intrinsically slanted to support "orthodoxy" and the ascendent political views, or it isn't. On Carlin-McGartlin - How would you feel if someone trained and working in economics decided to tell you how to do your job running your network? Carlin is an economist, not a scientist, and his being reigned in had nothing to do with politcal-correctness. It's hardly the same as what happend with the politicization of science under Bush. http://www.climatesc...s/epa-carlin-pt2/ http://tpmmuckraker....uld_p.php?ref=fpb HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #311,646 by beepster 7/23/09 10:11:39 PM Reply	Your base assumption, thus your problem is that you are assuming an absolute position...that I say its ALWAYS that way. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #311,649 by Another Scott 7/23/09 10:24:54 PM Reply	I simply read what you wrote. Their research funding (hence salary) does depend on what they say. Since you're not resorting to sophistry, I think we both know what those words mean. There's nothing there about a comparison. It's a blanket indictment of federally funded research. And it's wrong. If you don't want me to jump on you, take more time to spell out what you mean. If you mean to qualify a statement, do so when you make it - not later in a thread. Don't assume that everyone who reads your comments starts at the beginning of the thread and reads all your sentence fragments as a paragraph... Cheers, Scott.
Post #311,703 by beepster 7/24/09 3:45:55 PM Reply	Not my problem if you don't want to catch up before jumping in. ;-)At least my posts are in english. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #311,710 by Ashton 7/24/09 7:15:09 PM Reply	Not 'English' -- sentence fragments-as-slogans. It appears to be your only 'style'. You never ever could manage to reply to my repeated queries, ~~ "What IS it 'Conservatives' (or Libertytarians or ... ) Want To ConserveÂ ??" Seemed kinda basic to me; why, for someone with the wit to state some objectives, with attendant clarity -- it could form as much a basis for agreement as dis. But then you'd have to think. Maybe for an entire paragraph. Make every quip truncated and equivocal, so there's always weasel room (and then deny that your Absolutist mind-set IS different from solipsism.) Can't imagine why Scott wastes the time to attempt an actual dialogue with you two and your rag-tag collection of non sequiturs, so often from sites of similar all-unsorted ilk (as if that were something like 'debate'.) He does the work; you do the sophomoric, oft moronic sniping. No Thanks. Scott: better, more patient biped than I. Equanimity in the face of snide My Gramma authoritarianism; priceless. Affidavit to correct a Record(ing?) ..I will choose freewillfulness
Post #311,714 by beepster 7/25/09 2:57:33 PM Reply	Ah... so not answering a patently idiotic question appears to be somewhat of a sticking point for you. Again, not my problem. If you wish that Scott would stop...perhaps leading by example??? I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.

Welcome to IWETHEY!