Amazing, I stopped reading after only 6(5.5 perhaps) words. I think that is a new record for me.
........and Global Warming Theorists don't, I suppose?...........
In the 1960's the federal government started pouring money into science. At the time, I disapproved, to the amazement of my colleagues, saying eventually scientists will tell the government whatever it wnats to hear. I think that has ocme full flower now.
In 1882, Friedrich Nietzsche's Parable of the Madman predicted that European civilization was on the threshold of absolute freedom and power, unshackled by any notion of God, who was not only dead, but moldering. And if any worshippers yet remained it was because they had not yet heard the great news.
At the age of 45, Nietzsche suffered a mental breakdown from undetermined causes, embracing a horse among other things and asking it to sing. Yet even so, he would have been surprised to learn that in barely a century, the European civilization he believed to be on the brink of "a higher history than all history hitherto" -- would have collapsed upon itself, eviscerated by two world wars and terminal demographics; that churches, now called mosques, would be filled with worshippers from Indonesia, North Africa and the Middle East.
If the Madman came to 21st century Paris, he might announce the death of other gods, alike without success. He would have come too early, the harbinger of an event that had not yet reached the ears of men. The tidings he would bring would be unfamiliar, "and yet they have done it themselves".
Sensational puff piece. In other words, "what a pant load".
Just what good has the scientist brought? Everyday we hear of people dying of dropsy, consumption, the vapors, broken hearts, boils, exzema, and the dread strep throat.
OTOH, many scientists have and are doing extensive research, to assist humans in obtaining better health
and alternative treatments as we continue to live in a growing toxic world.
An excellent article.
The author concentrates on medical research, but it applies to climatology as well.
"separation of science and state"...I like it.
Money is thrown at science because it performs valuable work and we hope to encourage it. Corruption is part of the price.
And who was it who caught these frauds? Other scientists, that's who. The wailing in this article about scientific fraud is documenting the successful efforts of science to police itself. There might be a rationalization to build a "double blind" process of funding where scientists don't know where their money is coming from, and donors don't know where it's going to eliminate the incentive for shading data. But this article doesn't make it's point well by painting science as an association of frauds.
Because they're our society's high priests.
First, the lust for government money has caused universities to turn their backs on their teaching mission. Faculty are rewarded for bringing in money, not for teaching.
Second, the federal funding agencies have too much influence over what gets studied. For all the talk about peer review, it is a dirty little secret that program managers can steer the money where they think it should go.
Third, the bureaucrats at the funding agencies are risk-averse, and therefore prefer to spend money on "safe" research. That means they will fund the currently fashionable research being done by established researchers.
Fourth, in general, government cannot be expected to do spend taxpayer money efficiently. The money might be better spent closer to the source.
The article makes some points, but the rhetoric will ruffle feathers and it a bit over the top, IMO.
And the arts, and agriculture, and commercial development, and the health industry, and the ACLU, andandandand....
"You and me, baby, ain't nothin' but mammals, "So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel...."
LOL
bump
Scientists have feet of clay just like any humans.
Where some of them get into trouble...is pretending that they don't.
So naive.
It's not nearly as bad as journalism. At least scientists police themselves.
So far no one has contradicted Mary Mapes on her assessment of what constitutes good journalism. Also the writer of this piece has included several errors.