It's a four-list ping, kinda fancy.
· List topics · post a topic · subscribe · Google ·
· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark ·
· post new topic · subscribe ·Google news searches: exoplanet · exosolar · extrasolar ·
Posted on 01/06/2023 9:32:10 AM PST by DeweyCA
Look up the name John C. Houbolt.
In the early days of the US space program they had been considering two possible methods/techniques for shooting a rocket to the moon, “direct ascent” and “earth orbit rendezvous.” Von Braun himself favored EOR and anybody not on board with him would be swimming up stream.
Houbolt was a NASA engineer who had studied a technique first proposed in 1916 by Russian astronautics pioneer Yuri Kondratyuk called “lunar orbit rendezvous.” He’d run the numbers and knew it would be more efficient than either of the other two, and he thought the risks posed by LOR were more manageable. But nobody was buying what he was selling, so he bucked the chain of command — and in the doing, put his career on the line — and sent a 9-page letter to an assistant NASA administrator explaining why his method was provably better, and maybe even the only one that could work.
You might never heard his name but John Houbolt probably had more to do with the success of the Apollo program than any other single individual. Some speculate that his ideas saved the program from being a disaster of historic proportions instead of a nation’s crowning glory. But he’d never have had that impact if he hadn’t been willing to stand up to consensus.
The way we're headed, it may be again.
Isn't natural vitamin D from the sun via ultra-violet radiation? That's the best kind.
And Ethernet, which became computer networking. Robert Metcalfe, of the Xerox PARC Laboratory.
And the first object-oriented computer language, by Alan Kay, Dan Ingalls and Adele Goldberg, also of Xerox PARC.
Xerox was run by ex-Ford Motor Company executives. They were focused on making copiers. None of the above inventions, which played a large role in ushering in the internet age, were seen as helping Xerox sell more copiers.
Even as photocopying technology became a commodity, taken for granted and practically ignored, eventually being almost completely superseded by the computer desktop, computer graphics, and file sharing.
Yes, the amyloid theory has failed to yield any drugs that work. And the FDA approved an amyloid drug that does NOT work, sending Medicare into a tizzy!!!!
The leading competing tau theory may not yield any drugs that work either!
The NIH needs to start a special program for Alzheimer’s research based on alternative models ASAP! And they need to throw out sociological requirements such as “diversity” and “big teams” in awarding those grants!! Such a program will also stimulate venture capitalists to fund biotechs based on alternative models.
One issue is that there are subtypes of Alzheimer’s-like disease that may work via different mechanisms. Solve any one subtype, and that is progress!
Finally, even with better disease models, it may be some time before there are any working therapies. Neuroscience research is tough!!
Years ago David Packard (hp) founded MBARI with the intention of breaking the funding cycle. He put up many millions of dollars after finding that most scientists in oceanography
spend half their time writing grants. The group was roughly half engineers and half scientists. The eng’rs (including me) loved it. Proposals were evaluated on merit; not ROI.
The scientists balked and demanded that they be allowed to continue the grant process for fear that once outside peer review that they’d never get back into the loop. Dave lost.
“Thank you for your personal examples of where you have seen science fraud.”
Your welcome. One more example that shows the difference in consequences between fraud in academia and in industry. In academia the consequences are few or none. Here’s what happened in industry. One Friday, all seemed normal with scientist X who was seen working in the lab. After the weekend we found his office dark and locked (no one locked their offices), and his name had been taken off his door and the Lab directory. NOBODY in management would talk about him. He was basically disappeared from the organization. Later we found out he had been caught faking some data.
FWIW - vitamin D deficiency and a negative outcome with Covid is well studied and well established. While our bodies produce vitamin D in sunlight you can easily replace it by taking cheap vitamin D in supplements.
I would be interested in reading the thread you referenced if you can find it. FRegards
There's something evil about bureaucracies and committees. I think it's that the evil in men's hearts comes out when responsibility and blame can be shifted onto a group.
You see this in the behavior of mobs.
Thomas Sowell says much the same thing in the YouTube video of him entitled, “Intellectuals and Society.” Liberal academicians can survive advocating stupid ideas because there are o negative consequences to them because they have tenure, while liberal engineers have to directly face the consequences of their stupid ideas.
The gov’t did more to stop the distribution of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine then fentanyl”
Look for Near Infrared Light on 1/2/23
Thanks - that is an interesting thread and I will read the article and studies.
It's a four-list ping, kinda fancy.
· List topics · post a topic · subscribe · Google ·
· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark ·
· post new topic · subscribe ·Google news searches: exoplanet · exosolar · extrasolar ·
.....most scientists in oceanography spend half their time writing grants......
Most scientists who become lab leaders in any field spend MOST of their time writing grants!!!!
This is a big waste and might be another reason we don’t have good treatment for many diseases, including Alzheimer’s!!!!
“.... Insurance against fraudulent data is reproducibility of your results by others. This is rarely attempted because there is no one free to do it. ....”
Or fund it!
Also, there’s no ‘reward’ in doing it! You will not get a graduate degree - PhD, etc. for doing ‘reproducibility work’ even though it’s absolutely vital for science to move forward. The current system produces ‘papers’ that are likely not meaningful and that’s about it.
Consensus in science has been destroying good science for hundreds of years.
Is the earth flat?
Stars are holes in the firmament.
Eggs are bad for you.
Cigarettes will cure colon cancer.
> Cigarettes will cure colon cancer.
Of course, the trick is keeping them lit without blowing a hole in something...
Another term for science by consensus is “political science”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
