|
The world may come to an end, but I agree with Uzzy. I seriously stoped reading when they started the editorial by invoking Stalin. Why not just go with the Nazis and get Godwin out of the way from the get go. It took a concerted effort to read the rest, and while I agree ith the basic idea that science and ideology should not be linked, I disagree with the fact that government should not have anything to do with science.
The world may come to an end, but I agree with Uzzy. I seriously stoped reading when they started the editorial by invoking Stalin. Why not just go with the Nazis and get Godwin out of the way from the get go. It took a concerted effort to read the rest, and while I agree ith the basic idea that science and ideology should not be linked, I disagree with the fact that government should not have anything to do with science.
I'm not sure that their position is one of no government funding of any science, but I am deeply skeptical of government "science" and quite a bit of the corporate science especially much of the sociology.
Yeah, that was pretty close to full-on crackpot.
Government funds an awful lot of science - with little to no interference from politicians, and no strings attached, and lots of recourse for public access to the results. In fact, these days it is required for NIH funded science to put copies of all published papers into a public access database.
Corporate research has a much worse track record in this respect, with industry findings often kept secret from the public.
Yeah, that was pretty close to full-on crackpot.
Government funds an awful lot of science - with little to no interference from politicians, and no strings attached, and lots of recourse for public access to the results. In fact, these days it is required for NIH funded science to put copies of all published papers into a public access database.
Corporate research has a much worse track record in this respect, with industry findings often kept secret from the public.
It seems like the government has a long way to go. If the information isn't a state secret for security reasons why is any research funded by the tax payers not automatically accessible by the tax payers?
It will be interesting to see if the administration follows through with reducing this secrecy.
Yeah, that was pretty close to full-on crackpot.
Government funds an awful lot of science - with little to no interference from politicians, and no strings attached, and lots of recourse for public access to the results. In fact, these days it is required for NIH funded science to put copies of all published papers into a public access database.
Corporate research has a much worse track record in this respect, with industry findings often kept secret from the public.
It seems like the government has a long way to go. If the information isn't a state secret for security reasons why is any research funded by the tax payers not automatically accessible by the tax payers?
It will be interesting to see if the administration follows through with reducing this secrecy.
It's a good question, and I would like to see it go further as well. From a practical standpoint, I know from having had to give papers to the NIH that it's a pain in the neck. I think a lot of work could be done to make the process easier for the scientists, which would increase compliance.
But the best answer to your question, I think, is just that no one has the time/money/motivation to do more to make the research accessible. I would much rather spend my time doing actual research (or goofing off on the internet), than jumping through hoops to add my papers/data/etc. to a public database.
Second, there is the issue of copyright, which individual scientists almost never hold for their published work, no matter who funded it. That depends on the journals, who have an interest in not giving it up for free. So, even if I wanted to, I might be restricted from publishing a paper again in a public database.
snip
Corporate research has a much worse track record in this respect, with industry findings often kept secret from the public.
I'm much less concerned about corporate openness unless:
A) they fail to disclose likely hazards
or
B) they are using public funds (I obviously don't care for many of the public/private partnerships like GSEs etc.)
Moreover private researchers and developers have an expectation for a return on their research, but I don't think they should be government funded.
Public funds pouring into private corporations seems to have caused some real problems; defense and corrections industries come to mind.
Last time I saw that much ignorance in one place was back in grade school.
snip
Corporate research has a much worse track record in this respect, with industry findings often kept secret from the public.
I'm much less concerned about corporate openness unless:
A) they fail to disclose likely hazards
or
B) they are using public funds (I obviously don't care for many of the public/private partnerships like GSEs etc.)
Moreover private researchers and developers have an expectation for a return on their research, but I don't think they should be government funded.
Public funds pouring into private corporations seems to have caused some real problems; defense and corrections industries come to mind.
Your option A has indeed happened many times (tobacco industry, etc.).
I agree with you about corrections industries though - those should not be run by private companies at all, but publicly funded, with no profit motive.
Yeah, that was pretty close to full-on crackpot.
Government funds an awful lot of science - with little to no interference from politicians, and no strings attached, and lots of recourse for public access to the results. In fact, these days it is required for NIH funded science to put copies of all published papers into a public access database.
Corporate research has a much worse track record in this respect, with industry findings often kept secret from the public.
It seems like the government has a long way to go. If the information isn't a state secret for security reasons why is any research funded by the tax payers not automatically accessible by the tax payers?
It will be interesting to see if the administration follows through with reducing this secrecy.
It's a good question, and I would like to see it go further as well. From a practical standpoint, I know from having had to give papers to the NIH that it's a pain in the neck. I think a lot of work could be done to make the process easier for the scientists, which would increase compliance.
But the best answer to your question, I think, is just that no one has the time/money/motivation to do more to make the research accessible. I would much rather spend my time doing actual research (or goofing off on the internet), than jumping through hoops to add my papers/data/etc. to a public database.
Second, there is the issue of copyright, which individual scientists almost never hold for their published work, no matter who funded it. That depends on the journals, who have an interest in not giving it up for free. So, even if I wanted to, I might be restricted from publishing a paper again in a public database.
The current system of journals and peer review (and to a lesser degree IP) I believe should be more open and accountable where public funds are involved. On the other hand the costs of infrastructure to store and make the research data available would have to be paid by the taxpayer or they be an unfunded mandate on the researchers.
My intense skepticism of the government would drive more research toward the private sector, but that would tend to result in a less open scientific process to protect IP.
On the other hand how many billions of dollars of tax money have gone into research projects where we as tax payers and other stake holders have to take the government to court to get the data from publicly funded research?
Too many, I think.
snip
Corporate research has a much worse track record in this respect, with industry findings often kept secret from the public.
I'm much less concerned about corporate openness unless:
A) they fail to disclose likely hazards
or
B) they are using public funds (I obviously don't care for many of the public/private partnerships like GSEs etc.)
Moreover private researchers and developers have an expectation for a return on their research, but I don't think they should be government funded.
Public funds pouring into private corporations seems to have caused some real problems; defense and corrections industries come to mind.
Your option A has indeed happened many times (tobacco industry, etc.).
I agree with you about corrections industries though - those should not be run by private companies at all, but publicly funded, with no profit motive.
Violating A) also carries civil and criminal penalties which I am OK with in principal as a function of government.
I'm conflicted as to corrections.
At it's core I think the US penal system is immensely bloated and corrupt. Like the government as a whole I think that the only way to fix it is to make it radically smaller.
On the other hand I think private enterprise executes most functions better than government, but the private corrections industry doesn't seem to be appreciably less broken than the public one. It may be more cost effective in some cases, but the relationship seems corrupting to me. I'm not articulating this very well I'm afraid.
The current system of journals and peer review (and to a lesser degree IP) I believe should be more open and accountable where public funds are involved. On the other hand the costs of infrastructure to store and make the research data available would have to be paid by the taxpayer or they be an unfunded mandate on the researchers.
The problem here is that while the research is publicly funded, the publishing industry is privately funded.
Other than forcing the privately held journals to give away their product for free (which is essentially what's happening so far with the NIH), what options are there to solve this problem?
If the government starts its own publishing outlet for the research it funds, it would face a real uphill battle to gain respect, particularly if they have to publish anything and everything - how could you enforce the high standards necessary to gain the prestige necessary for the scientists to build their careers and attract grant funding?
The current system of journals and peer review (and to a lesser degree IP) I believe should be more open and accountable where public funds are involved. On the other hand the costs of infrastructure to store and make the research data available would have to be paid by the taxpayer or they be an unfunded mandate on the researchers.
The problem here is that while the research is publicly funded, the publishing industry is privately funded.
Other than forcing the privately held journals to give away their product for free (which is essentially what's happening so far with the NIH), what options are there to solve this problem?
If the government starts its own publishing outlet for the research it funds, it would face a real uphill battle to gain respect, particularly if they have to publish anything and everything - how could you enforce the high standards necessary to gain the prestige necessary for the scientists to build their careers and attract grant funding?
This and other conflicts are part of why the current system is so suspect.
Although I am convinced that the current government funding structure is corrupted and politicized.
I think we can agree that research funded by Bush's (or Ginrich's) EPA as opposed to Pelosi and Obama's EPA. We may disagree on the extent, but can we agree that the process is impacted by politics?
My question for you and David would be how can you possibly de-politicize the legislative process of funding allocation and it's impact on the research?
EDIT: I don't think it can be done.
While the editorial appeals to my views I would suggest that it raises valid concerns even if I selected an example that many might consider inflammatory.
I find much of the research on social and policy issues to be politically driven. I think we can see quite a few examples of this on issues ranging from drugs and guns to HIV and climate change.
The current system of journals and peer review (and to a lesser degree IP) I believe should be more open and accountable where public funds are involved. On the other hand the costs of infrastructure to store and make the research data available would have to be paid by the taxpayer or they be an unfunded mandate on the researchers.
The problem here is that while the research is publicly funded, the publishing industry is privately funded.
Other than forcing the privately held journals to give away their product for free (which is essentially what's happening so far with the NIH), what options are there to solve this problem?
If the government starts its own publishing outlet for the research it funds, it would face a real uphill battle to gain respect, particularly if they have to publish anything and everything - how could you enforce the high standards necessary to gain the prestige necessary for the scientists to build their careers and attract grant funding?
This and other conflicts are part of why the current system is so suspect.
Although I am convinced that the current government funding structure is corrupted and politicized.
I think we can agree that research funded by Bush's (or Ginrich's) EPA as opposed to Pelosi and Obama's EPA. We may disagree on the extent, but can we agree that the process is impacted by politics?
My question for you and David would be how can you possibly de-politicize the legislative process of funding allocation and it's impact on the research?
EDIT: I don't think it can be done.
While the editorial appeals to my views I would suggest that it raises valid concerns even if I selected an example that many might consider inflammatory.
I find much of the research on social and policy issues to be politically driven. I think we can see quite a few examples of this on issues ranging from drugs and guns to HIV and climate change.
These are mostly outside of my field, so I can't speak from any experience or particular knowledge on the actual funding.
That said, I know that Bush's administration seemed more likely to put pressure on scientists (at NASA for sure, and maybe the EPA too?) to report certain results. I don't have any idea if this impacted funding decisions though. In my field at least, the actual funding decisions are made by panels of reviewers who are scientists, and I have trouble imagining how this process could be influenced by politicians.
I don't think the politics is necessarily a bad thing - to have a politician say that we want to earmark a certain amount of funding for research into cancer, HIV, autism, whatever, seems perfectly ok to me.
These are mostly...
The current system of journals and peer review (and to a lesser degree IP) I believe should be more open and accountable where public funds are involved. On the other hand the costs of infrastructure to store and make the research data available would have to be paid by the taxpayer or they be an unfunded mandate on the researchers.
The problem here is that while the research is publicly funded, the publishing industry is privately funded.
Other than forcing the privately held journals to give away their product for free (which is essentially what's happening so far with the NIH), what options are there to solve this problem?
If the government starts its own publishing outlet for the research it funds, it would face a real uphill battle to gain respect, particularly if they have to publish anything and everything - how could you enforce the high standards necessary to gain the prestige necessary for the scientists to build their careers and attract grant funding?
This and other conflicts are part of why the current system is so suspect.
Although I am convinced that the current government funding structure is corrupted and politicized.
I think we can agree that research funded by Bush's (or Ginrich's) EPA as opposed to Pelosi and Obama's EPA. We may disagree on the extent, but can we agree that the process is impacted by politics?
My question for you and David would be how can you possibly de-politicize the legislative process of funding allocation and it's impact on the research?
EDIT: I don't think it can be done.
While the editorial appeals to my views I would suggest that it raises valid concerns even if I selected an example that many might consider inflammatory.
I find much of the research on social and policy issues to be politically driven. I think we can see quite a few examples of this on issues ranging from drugs and guns to HIV and climate change.
I would argue that there is where the corruption lies. If you get the results I want you get more funding earmarked. This is fundamentally political. Good or bad, the system is political.
Why are the Gun Owners of America spending donor money on fighting about climate change? I'm more outraged about that than anything.
I don't believe anyone forced them to donate in stark contrast to federal funding.
Reason over coercion is better in my mind.
You misunderstand my outrage. I'm not annoyed that their view on climate change is dumb (and no, I'm not really interested in fighting with people about that); I'm annoyed that they have one at all. I'm speaking as someone who would normally be inclined to donate to an appropriate organization of this sort to defend my gun rights, but definitely not if they're going to meddle in other areas of politics. I dropped my since-childhood NRA membership over a similar issue (although it was a conservation issue, which is arguably relevant to the NRA).
Climate change legislation affects energy costs. Energy costs affect mining operations. Mining operations affect the cost of ore. The cost of ore affects the cost of bullets (which are made out of copper and lead, in case anyone didn't know that. And they don't spark when they hit stuff, unlike in the movies).
Just sayin'.
I will now return to my high horse and carry on with my day.
You misunderstand my outrage. I'm not annoyed that their view on climate change is dumb (and no, I'm not really interested in fighting with people about that); I'm annoyed that they have one at all. I'm speaking as someone who would normally be inclined to donate to an appropriate organization of this sort to defend my gun rights, but definitely not if they're going to meddle in other areas of politics. I dropped my since-childhood NRA membership over a similar issue (although it was a conservation issue, which is arguably relevant to the NRA).I don't believe anyone forced them to donate in stark contrast to federal funding.
Reason over coercion is better in my mind.
Whoops; I did indeed misunderstand. Sorry that came off in such a snarky way.
I don't believe that GOA lobbies against climate issues. I believe the editorial simply opposes funding politically driven research.
GOAs political action updates are available for free and they will provide you with a better sense of GOAs position than I am likely to articulate.
As a non-government-funded scientist (private consultant), I should stay out of this one, except to point out that East Anglia is a textbook case of non-transparency and the idiocy of siege mentality, which are both good things to avoid when doing publically-funded science.
From reviewing the "hidden" emails that came to light, however, I can say that it's NOT in any way an example of falsifying data (unlike Gore's lame excuse for a "documentary"). For example, cleaning up a graph to clearly show relevant data -- or applying a statistical filter to normalize points -- are a LOT different from lying about those same data, omitting relevant points, or constructing an incorrect graph. In other words, the people at East Anglia were stupid and paranoid, but not dishonest. The whole "Climategate scandal" hooplah relies on the layperson's total inability to tell the one from the other.
This is one of the big issues I have with various public private partnerships.
If these research institutions want my tax money they shouldn't be able to hide the data from me.
If they want their research and results and IP to be proprietary they should use private funds.
If these research institutions want my tax money they shouldn't be able to hide the data from me.
Yes! And in the case of East Anglia, apparently in the long run they KNEW they would have to disclose all of it... but during the work, they apparently panicked -- lest someone cherry-pick and reconstruct pieces of the data to premptively publish a false "rebuttal" of their findings that would get more press. So some fool made the egregious blunder of trying to prevent that, by hiding the stuff while they worked. And we can see how well that panned out for them: their attempt to avoid selective misrepresentation of the data led instead, ironically, to widespread misrepresentation of EVERYTHING they were doing. Nice one!
If these research institutions want my tax money they shouldn't be able to hide the data from me.Yes! And in the case of East Anglia, apparently in the long run they KNEW they would have to disclose all of it... but during the work, they apparently panicked -- lest someone cherry-pick and reconstruct pieces of the data to premptively publish a false "rebuttal" of their findings that would get more press. So some fool made the egregious blunder of trying to prevent that, by hiding the stuff while they worked. And we can see how well that panned out for them: their attempt to avoid selective misrepresentation of the data led instead, ironically, to widespread misrepresentation of EVERYTHING they were doing. Nice one!
Yeah, that's about the extent of it. It's sad when "Dilbert" reflects life more accurately than the news does, but there you have it.
Yeah, that's about the extent of it. It's sad when "Dilbert" reflects life more accurately than the news does, but there you have it.
The mainstream media does a generally horrible job of reporting on any issue with any complexity. Of course they also choose to ignore a great many issues like the debt and massive entitlement shortfalls.
Election coverage is wretched too. Countless hours of coverage and there is about zero real analysis of actual issues and positions.
Of course I say this as someone who is quite skeptical of AC of GCC and the institutions and politicians who advocate for it.
bump