America Dumbs Down

[Junior]

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

 

 

I assumed that's where he was going as well.

 

I think you and I are getting a little bogged down in the details of any one specific scientific study that may be erroneous, where the article mentions a general distrust of science on things like evolution and climate change, which have been validated repeatedly and nearly unanimously accepted as scientific fact.

[Creighton Duke]

 

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

 

 

I assumed that's where he was going as well.

 

I think you and I are getting a little bogged down in the details of any one specific scientific study that may be erroneous, where the article mentions a general distrust of science on things like evolution and climate change, which have been validated repeatedly and nearly unanimously accepted as scientific fact.

 

I agree. Maybe people distrust evolution because Darwin didn't get IRB consent forms from animals on the Galapagos and approval from his university...

 

Again, my point is one of acknowledging that there is a definite reward structure in place for engaging in "popular" research (I don't want to say "important" because headline-generating research brings in the bucks) that can lead to erroneous results, whether by accident or via fraudulent means. Because it can take so long to disprove research, many of those involved with erroneous results could have reached their payday long before anything is ever challenged, yet alone proven to be false.

[Junior]

 

 

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

 

 

I assumed that's where he was going as well.

 

I think you and I are getting a little bogged down in the details of any one specific scientific study that may be erroneous, where the article mentions a general distrust of science on things like evolution and climate change, which have been validated repeatedly and nearly unanimously accepted as scientific fact.

 

I agree. Maybe people distrust evolution because Darwin didn't get IRB consent forms from animals on the Galapagos and approval from his university...

 

Again, my point is one of acknowledging that there is a definite reward structure in place for engaging in "popular" research (I don't want to say "important" because headline-generating research brings in the bucks) that can lead to erroneous results, whether by accident or via fraudulent means. Because it can take so long to disprove research, many of those involved with erroneous results could have reached their payday long before anything is ever challenged, yet alone proven to be false.

 

 

 

I agree and disagree with this all at the same time... Certainly there is a reward for engaging in popular research. I saw that with the massive increase in people studying bacterial toxins after the 2001 anthrax "scare". Though, that might lead to erroneous results, it doesn't inherently do so. And the increase in people studying something that is popular actually works to increase the speed with which those results would be shown to be false.

 

But yea, generally I don't think we disagree.

[tschu]

So we've gone from "SC Congress rejecting state fossil because of the bible" to "Research is bad because of Stanford Prison Study and Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment"

 

great

[tschu]

Research isn't just throwing some stuff in a petri dish and then sending a paper off somewhere. Your ethics are scrutinized. Every single part of your experimental method is scrutinized and your results and data analysis methods are scrutinized. Your conclusions are scrutinized. That's the peer review process. This isn't 1970, guys.

[Creighton Duke]

So we've gone from "SC Congress rejecting state fossil because of the bible" to "Research is bad because of Stanford Prison Study and Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment"

 

great

You haven't contributed anything. Don't use "we" like you have.

[Landlord]

So we've gone from "SC Congress rejecting state fossil because of the bible" to "Research is bad because of Stanford Prison Study and Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment"

 

great

 

 

Literally no.

 

But you could try to help shift the topic.

[tschu]

In fact your financial motives are scrutinized. You're obligated to disclose any and all financial interests that may affect your study. And obviously if you're reading a study performed by an independent researcher funded by an oil company, you should be pretty skeptical when they conclude that climate change is a myth.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

I just love it when people take a viewpoint of some conservative Christians and act as if all Christians shared those beliefs. It makes people look so stupid.

 

While I don't think that was done in the article, I feel it's just the overall salience of a specific group of conservative Christians that lends way to the belief that all Christian conservatives are nut-jobs. I'm willing to bet that for every 1 whacko conservative Christian, there are about 8-10 conservative Christians who are not "insane in the membrane."

 

Let's imagine that these two groups of people are on two different stages talking to the same audience. The 1 whacko, somehow incredibly funded by special interest groups, has a megaphone that is hooked up to 8 amplifiers. The 8-10 non-whackos, funded by nobody but themselves, just have their voices. Let's say that it's an audience of 50,000 people. Of those 50,000 people, only those close to the stage of the 8-10 non-whackos might hear what they have to say. The rest of the people, the majority, will only hear and remember the words of the 1 whacko.

 

Excellent analogy. +1 cuz that's all I can do.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

tschu is right, though. Everything about your study: your reasons for wanting to do the study in the first place, your methods, your analyses, your conclusions, et cetera--everything is scrutinized.

 

Still doesn't mean bad research is impossible, but exploitative research is. It isn't the 1970s.

[BigRedBuster]

I have no doubt that financial motives are looked at and attempted to be taken out of the process. However, they will always be there.

 

A researcher pays his/her mortgage and puts food on the table for the family by getting grants to do his/her work. The more grants they get, the happier the University and potentially pay the researcher more money. He/she isn't making more money directly from the grant or the researcher, but by the University while getting more grants.

 

On the other side of the equation, there are humans who OK the grants to the researcher. When you have humans involved, there will ALWAYS be financial motivations in situations like this. If those decision makers don't see the research as beneficial, they don't give the grant. Many times, that "benefit" is financial to someone.

 

To say public funding of research is rarely influenced by someone's financial gain is being naive.

[Junior]

I have no doubt that financial motives are looked at and attempted to be taken out of the process. However, they will always be there.

 

A researcher pays his/her mortgage and puts food on the table for the family by getting grants to do his/her work. The more grants they get, the happier the University and potentially pay the researcher more money. He/she isn't making more money directly from the grant or the researcher, but by the University while getting more grants.

 

On the other side of the equation, there are humans who OK the grants to the researcher. When you have humans involved, there will ALWAYS be financial motivations in situations like this. If those decision makers don't see the research as beneficial, they don't give the grant. Many times, that "benefit" is financial to someone.

 

To say public funding of research is rarely influenced by someone's financial gain is being naive.

 

Do you know the process for how the NIH and NSF award grants?

[BigRedBuster]

Do I intimately know the process? No....but, I know enough people who work in the research community who talk about it and I don't think they would disagree with me too much in a private conversation.

[Landlord]

Do I intimately know the process? No....but, I know enough people who work in the research community who talk about it and I don't think they would disagree with me too much in a private conversation.

 

 

Here's what a friend of mine who is a researcher at the U of Delaware had to say about it:

 

ME:

Hi to what extent is academic science influenced by money

Like to where it would/could negatively influence the research or process

Her:

It is to the extent that a lot of science can't happen without grant funding

Partially because of costs for equipment, reagents, lab stuff

But a lot of people require grants as salary

Researchers at "Soft money" institutions (not unis) get paid only through grants. Don't get awarded, don't get paid

At universities, you are expected, generally, to replace some of the money the school is paying toward your salary with money earned through grants awarded

Me:

Okay how about as far as corrupting or influencing motivations though

Her:

Oh um

Not really? I mean in theory your grant is based on its own merits, judged by your peers etc

In more applied sciences, I guess you have grants awarded through companies or institutions that may have a less than purely scholarly intentions

Some engineering, petroleum geology, etc

A lot of that science happens at those companies specifically

But For something like climate research

You submit a proposal to nsf, nasa, noaa

It is judged on soundness, risk/reward, potential outcomes applications, what have you

Experts in your field judge it, give their recommendations to a program manager

That manager decides whee the money goes

But it's not like if you win a grant, you can give yourself a six figure salary

You can't increase your salary at all from what the university is paying you

You are just replacing what they have to put toward it

I guess there can be issues with like, if there is a competing lab with a member on the review panel

Proposals should be judged objectively but obviously sometimes egos get in the way

Peer review can have issues but it is really the best option we have

No one in academia at least is getting a cut for saying climate change is happening or whatever

A lot of money is allocated for it out of nsf budgets or whatever, but that's so we know how soon new Orleans is gonna be under water or whatever

[BigRedBuster]

He basically said what the people I know would say. Many things have been put in place to take money out of the equation. But, as he said, egos get involved, competing labs get involved....etc. and when you have humans (even peers) involved indecision making, there is going to be at least some room for financial issues to influence decisions.

 

I'm also not saying a researcher gets a raise directly from a grant. However, if I'm a researcher and I'm doing a bunch of research that is costing a ton of money and don't get any grants to help pay for it, I'm not going to be a researcher very long.

Look, I'm not saying there is a better system. I'm just not going to be blind to the fact that finances come into play.