Why Federal Science Funding Leaves Much to Be Desired
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
As the usual prospects rushed to get out their press releases out blaming the Philippines typhoon on global warming, in spite of zero science supporting that claim, the invaluable climate auditor, Steve McIntyre, brings out some serious issues involving federal research in nutrition:
But by not training mentees in the basics of science and skepticism, the nutrition field has fostered the use of measures that are so profoundly dissonant with scientific principles that they will never yield a definitive conclusion. As such, we now have multiple generations of nutrition researchers who dominate federal nutrition research and the peer review of that work, but lack the critical thinking skills necessary to critique or conduct sound scientific research...
Perhaps more importantly, to waste finite health research resources on pseudo-quantitative methods and then attempt to base public health policy on these anecdotal “data” is not only inane, it is willfully fraudulent… The fact that nutrition researchers have known for decades that these techniques are invalid implies that the field has been perpetrating fraud against the US taxpayers for more than 40 years—far greater than any fraud perpetrated in the private sector (e.g., the Enron and Madoff scandals).
There is far more at Steve's blog along with some great comments that are must reading. On this same topic, here is more from Matt Briggs. Keep in mind that a few years ago, we were being told that trans-fats were OK.
When anti-science rhetoric occurs at a Kansas school-board fight over creationism, we can nod our educated heads in silent amusement, but if multiple generations of nutrition researchers have been trained to ignore contrary evidence, to continue writing and receiving grants, and to keep publishing specious results, the scientific community as a whole has a major credibility issue. Perhaps more importantly, to waste finite health research resources on pseudo-quantitative methods and then attempt to base public health policy on these anecdotal “data” is not only inane, it is willfully fraudulent.
-- Edward Archer, entire editorial here
Money has corrupted client science. But, the issue may be both wider (affecting more sciences than just atmospheric science) and deeper. If the training of these scientists omits the "scientific method," it is no wonder we, for example, constantly hear the nonsense about 'consensus.' President Eisenhower had it exactly right in the quote above and in the next paragraph of the address where he added:
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
And, to become part of the "elite" today, you have to publish often (quantity too often outranks quality) and get large research grants. The usefulness of the research is, too often, beside the point (I wasn't kidding Monday when I talked about the multiple studies about global warming and giant squid).
When I was studying meteorology at the University of Oklahoma, I took a course called History of Science. It was fascinating. We were thoroughly schooled in the scientific method and how deviations from that method were behind many of sciences' failures over the centuries. I assumed universities were still teaching this material. If they are not, they need to reinstate it immediately.
Otherwise, science becomes an expensive drain that misleads, rather than enlightens, society.
--- President Eisenhower's Farewell Address
As the usual prospects rushed to get out their press releases out blaming the Philippines typhoon on global warming, in spite of zero science supporting that claim, the invaluable climate auditor, Steve McIntyre, brings out some serious issues involving federal research in nutrition:
But by not training mentees in the basics of science and skepticism, the nutrition field has fostered the use of measures that are so profoundly dissonant with scientific principles that they will never yield a definitive conclusion. As such, we now have multiple generations of nutrition researchers who dominate federal nutrition research and the peer review of that work, but lack the critical thinking skills necessary to critique or conduct sound scientific research...
Perhaps more importantly, to waste finite health research resources on pseudo-quantitative methods and then attempt to base public health policy on these anecdotal “data” is not only inane, it is willfully fraudulent… The fact that nutrition researchers have known for decades that these techniques are invalid implies that the field has been perpetrating fraud against the US taxpayers for more than 40 years—far greater than any fraud perpetrated in the private sector (e.g., the Enron and Madoff scandals).
There is far more at Steve's blog along with some great comments that are must reading. On this same topic, here is more from Matt Briggs. Keep in mind that a few years ago, we were being told that trans-fats were OK.
When anti-science rhetoric occurs at a Kansas school-board fight over creationism, we can nod our educated heads in silent amusement, but if multiple generations of nutrition researchers have been trained to ignore contrary evidence, to continue writing and receiving grants, and to keep publishing specious results, the scientific community as a whole has a major credibility issue. Perhaps more importantly, to waste finite health research resources on pseudo-quantitative methods and then attempt to base public health policy on these anecdotal “data” is not only inane, it is willfully fraudulent.
-- Edward Archer, entire editorial here
Money has corrupted client science. But, the issue may be both wider (affecting more sciences than just atmospheric science) and deeper. If the training of these scientists omits the "scientific method," it is no wonder we, for example, constantly hear the nonsense about 'consensus.' President Eisenhower had it exactly right in the quote above and in the next paragraph of the address where he added:
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
And, to become part of the "elite" today, you have to publish often (quantity too often outranks quality) and get large research grants. The usefulness of the research is, too often, beside the point (I wasn't kidding Monday when I talked about the multiple studies about global warming and giant squid).
When I was studying meteorology at the University of Oklahoma, I took a course called History of Science. It was fascinating. We were thoroughly schooled in the scientific method and how deviations from that method were behind many of sciences' failures over the centuries. I assumed universities were still teaching this material. If they are not, they need to reinstate it immediately.
Otherwise, science becomes an expensive drain that misleads, rather than enlightens, society.
Comments
Post a Comment