America Dumbs Down

[Junior]

 

Government grants fund entire labs.... but the professors in charge make substantially less money in academic science than if they were to have a similar position in industry. That being said, there's really only one way to repeatedly get a grant, and that is to propose a good idea and then actually produce useful data. Your charge is that scientists routinely falsify data in order to obtain a grant, but you have yet to demonstrate this. Does it happen? Sure, from time to time. Sadly, there are a certain percentage of humans in any industry that cheat to get what they want. Is it common? Absolutely not.

 

This would definitely be in the eye of the beholder. How many examples of government-funded studies do you want about nearly meaningless topics?

 

 

Define meaningless. Just because you can't see the benefit of a study, that doesn't mean there isn't one.

[Junior]

1. University pushes for profs/researchers to secure grants

 

2. Prof/researcher secures grants, attains tenure and widespread recognition

3. Prof/researcher takes advantage of recognition; begins consulting on the side

4. Prof/researcher leaves academia. The little pay, but exposure and facilities that university provided has been parlayed into lucrative non-academic gig

 

 

Sometimes, sure. But you don't get tenure, widespread recognition, and lucrative non-academic jobs by doing bad research.

[Creighton Duke]

 

1. University pushes for profs/researchers to secure grants

 

2. Prof/researcher secures grants, attains tenure and widespread recognition

3. Prof/researcher takes advantage of recognition; begins consulting on the side

4. Prof/researcher leaves academia. The little pay, but exposure and facilities that university provided has been parlayed into lucrative non-academic gig

 

 

Sometimes, sure. But you don't get tenure, widespread recognition, and lucrative non-academic jobs by doing bad research.

 

Explain good vs. bad research? How many studies have you read that include the phrase "this is in direct contradiction to previous studies on the topic" or something along those lines?

[Junior]

 

 

1. University pushes for profs/researchers to secure grants

 

2. Prof/researcher secures grants, attains tenure and widespread recognition

3. Prof/researcher takes advantage of recognition; begins consulting on the side

4. Prof/researcher leaves academia. The little pay, but exposure and facilities that university provided has been parlayed into lucrative non-academic gig

 

 

Sometimes, sure. But you don't get tenure, widespread recognition, and lucrative non-academic jobs by doing bad research.

 

Explain good vs. bad research? How many studies have you read that include the phrase "this is in direct contradiction to previous studies on the topic" or something along those lines?

 

 

Sure that happens sometimes. Sometimes people make mistakes, misinterpret data, or just are flawed in their approach. It happens. Scientists are humans. Or are scientists never allowed to be wrong? And I've seen specific labs that consistently have issues with this. They no longer exist because they were unable to secure ongoing funding for their research. But being wrong doesn't make you guilty of fraud.

[Creighton Duke]

 

 

 

1. University pushes for profs/researchers to secure grants

 

2. Prof/researcher secures grants, attains tenure and widespread recognition

3. Prof/researcher takes advantage of recognition; begins consulting on the side

4. Prof/researcher leaves academia. The little pay, but exposure and facilities that university provided has been parlayed into lucrative non-academic gig

 

 

Sometimes, sure. But you don't get tenure, widespread recognition, and lucrative non-academic jobs by doing bad research.

 

Explain good vs. bad research? How many studies have you read that include the phrase "this is in direct contradiction to previous studies on the topic" or something along those lines?

 

 

Sure that happens sometimes. Sometimes people make mistakes, misinterpret data, or just are flawed in their approach. It happens. Scientists are humans. Or are scientists never allowed to be wrong? And I've seen specific labs that consistently have issues with this. They no longer exist because they were unable to secure ongoing funding for their research. But being wrong doesn't make you guilty of fraud.

 

I am agreeing with you. My point is, you can be conducting research that brings in the grants/tenure/consulting/etc. that appears "good" but is later disputed or found invalid.

 

My original point wasn't that the process is fraudulant as others have alluded to, but it does represent a fallacy in a scientific process where there are clear and distinct reward structures for raking in the big bucks for universities.

[Junior]

 

 

 

 

1. University pushes for profs/researchers to secure grants

 

2. Prof/researcher secures grants, attains tenure and widespread recognition

3. Prof/researcher takes advantage of recognition; begins consulting on the side

4. Prof/researcher leaves academia. The little pay, but exposure and facilities that university provided has been parlayed into lucrative non-academic gig

 

 

Sometimes, sure. But you don't get tenure, widespread recognition, and lucrative non-academic jobs by doing bad research.

 

Explain good vs. bad research? How many studies have you read that include the phrase "this is in direct contradiction to previous studies on the topic" or something along those lines?

 

 

Sure that happens sometimes. Sometimes people make mistakes, misinterpret data, or just are flawed in their approach. It happens. Scientists are humans. Or are scientists never allowed to be wrong? And I've seen specific labs that consistently have issues with this. They no longer exist because they were unable to secure ongoing funding for their research. But being wrong doesn't make you guilty of fraud.

 

I am agreeing with you. My point is, you can be conducting research that brings in the grants/tenure/consulting/etc. that appears "good" but is later disputed or found invalid.

 

My original point wasn't that the process is fraudulant as others have alluded to, but it does represent a fallacy in a scientific process where there are clear and distinct reward structures for raking in the big bucks for universities.

 

 

Yes, and that reward system generally only works for people who are also correct in their research.

[Junior]

 

 

Government grants fund entire labs.... but the professors in charge make substantially less money in academic science than if they were to have a similar position in industry. That being said, there's really only one way to repeatedly get a grant, and that is to propose a good idea and then actually produce useful data. Your charge is that scientists routinely falsify data in order to obtain a grant, but you have yet to demonstrate this. Does it happen? Sure, from time to time. Sadly, there are a certain percentage of humans in any industry that cheat to get what they want. Is it common? Absolutely not.

 

This would definitely be in the eye of the beholder. How many examples of government-funded studies do you want about nearly meaningless topics?

 

 

Define meaningless. Just because you can't see the benefit of a study, that doesn't mean there isn't one.

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/why-the-sex-life-of-the-screwworm-deserves-taxpayer-dollars/2012/04/26/gIQAQvT1iT_blog.html

 

Why ‘the sex life of the screwworm’ deserves taxpayer dollars

Together with two House Republicans and a coalition of major science associations, Cooper has created the first annual Golden Goose Awards to honor federally funded research “whose work may once have been viewed as unusual, odd, or obscure, but has produced important discoveries benefiting society in significant ways.”

 

Federally-funded research of dog urine ultimately gave scientists and understanding of the effect of hormones on the human kidney, which in turn has been helpful for diabetes patients. A study called “Acoustic Trauma in the Guinea Pig” resulted in treatment of early hearing loss in infants. And that randy screwworm study? It helped researchers control the population of a deadly parasite that targets cattle--costing the government $250,000 but ultimately saving the cattle industry more than $20 billion, according to Cooper’s office.

[Creighton Duke]

 

 

 

Yes, and that reward system generally only works for people who are also correct in their research.

 

Show me

[Junior]

 

Show me

 

Tough to do, I wouldn't even know where to begin to look for that data... so I won't. My comment is based on personal observation, mostly. The poor researchers that I've interacted with are no longer in research science. (For that matter, neither are many good ones, as funding has become increasingly difficult to come by.)

[Landlord]

 

 

Show me

 

Tough to do, I wouldn't even know where to begin to look for that data... so I won't. My comment is based on personal observation, mostly. The poor researchers that I've interacted with are no longer in research science. (For that matter, neither are many good ones, as funding has become increasingly difficult to come by.)

 

 

 

You keep making a distinction between good/bad exceptional/poor research - but what about exploitative and opportunistic research?

 

Doesn't have to be intellectually bad to be shady as hell.

[Junior]

 

 

 

Show me

 

Tough to do, I wouldn't even know where to begin to look for that data... so I won't. My comment is based on personal observation, mostly. The poor researchers that I've interacted with are no longer in research science. (For that matter, neither are many good ones, as funding has become increasingly difficult to come by.)

 

 

 

You keep making a distinction between good/bad exceptional/poor research - but what about exploitative and opportunistic research?

 

Doesn't have to be intellectually bad to be shady as hell.

 

 

 

Obviously you have something specific on your mind... so why don't you tell me.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

 

 

 

Show me

 

Tough to do, I wouldn't even know where to begin to look for that data... so I won't. My comment is based on personal observation, mostly. The poor researchers that I've interacted with are no longer in research science. (For that matter, neither are many good ones, as funding has become increasingly difficult to come by.)

 

 

 

but what about exploitative and opportunistic research?

 

 

 

 

Examples?

 

I'm thinking we're all in agreement on this, but I'll throw my 2 cents in anyways. The distinction between good and bad research lies in the method by which participants were selected, tested, and the process by which results were analyzed and interpreted.

[Creighton Duke]

 

 

 

 

Show me

 

Tough to do, I wouldn't even know where to begin to look for that data... so I won't. My comment is based on personal observation, mostly. The poor researchers that I've interacted with are no longer in research science. (For that matter, neither are many good ones, as funding has become increasingly difficult to come by.)

 

 

 

You keep making a distinction between good/bad exceptional/poor research - but what about exploitative and opportunistic research?

 

Doesn't have to be intellectually bad to be shady as hell.

 

 

 

Obviously you have something specific on your mind... so why don't you tell me.

 

...mention of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study in 5.4.3....

[Landlord]

Obviously you have something specific on your mind... so why don't you tell me.

 

 

I really don't so I'm not sure how that's obvious

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, back to the original subject - how long can our country keep up this trend? At some point something has to give, right?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

 

 

 

 

 

Show me

 

Tough to do, I wouldn't even know where to begin to look for that data... so I won't. My comment is based on personal observation, mostly. The poor researchers that I've interacted with are no longer in research science. (For that matter, neither are many good ones, as funding has become increasingly difficult to come by.)

 

 

 

You keep making a distinction between good/bad exceptional/poor research - but what about exploitative and opportunistic research?

 

Doesn't have to be intellectually bad to be shady as hell.

 

 

 

Obviously you have something specific on your mind... so why don't you tell me.

 

...mention of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study in 5.4.3....

 

 

See also: Stanford Prison Study and Milgram Obedience Experiments.

 

There is a reason why internal review boards exist.