Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is lavish taxpayer funding killing science?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Before you say no, at least read this:

My experiences at four research universities and as a National Institutes of Health (NIH) research fellow taught me that the relentless pursuit of taxpayer funding has eliminated curiosity, basic competence, and scientific integrity in many fields.

Yet, more importantly, training in “science” is now tantamount to grant-writing and learning how to obtain funding. Organized skepticism, critical thinking, and methodological rigor, if present at all, are afterthoughts. Thus, our nation’s institutions no longer perform their role as Eisenhower’s fountainhead of free ideas and discovery. Instead, American universities often produce corrupt, incompetent, or scientifically meaningless research that endangers the public, confounds public policy, and diminishes our nation’s preparedness to meet future challenges.

Nowhere is the intellectual and moral decline more evident than in public health research. From 1970 to 2010, as taxpayer funding for public health research increased 700 percent, the number of retractions of biomedical research articles increased more than 900 percent, with most due to misconduct. Fraud and retractions increased so precipitously from 2010 to 2015 that private foundations created the Center for Scientific Integrity and “Retraction Watch” to alert the public.

Edward Archer, “The Intellectual and Moral Decline in Academic Research” at James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal

One cringes to think of the public policy that is based on much of this “research.”

One senses that the massive increase in research misconduct masks a deeper issue. Why don’t scientists want to be more honest? In most systems whose practitioners are distinguished for a high standard of integrity, integrity is actually a value. Can science thrive without it?

See also: End of science prediction from 2014: Are we there yet? Daniel Greenfield on the Saganization of science: This form of science measures itself not against the universe, but against the intellectual bubble inhabited by those who share the same worldview or those who live under their control.

Comments
Scientists are human too? Tell me it ain’t so! ????
Scientismists *believe* that labcoats give humans superpowers. Once you wear one, you become all-knowledgeable and all-powerful. Like Superman. It is part of their childish mentality. They rely on magic and have not grown-up. According to atheists: 1. Universes appear from nothing, for no reason whatsoever. 2. "Life" appears from non-life (bye bye Redi, Spallanzani, Pasteur). 3. darwin's finches are different "species" (they are probably not). https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/are-darwins-finches-one-species-or-many. But "daddy" (darwin) can not be wrong! (They pout). 4. Humans are "illusions" (dennett, coyne, dawkins). Phantasmagoric beliefs. 5. Things "just" happen, randomness and chaos beget order. They have their own collection of fables/ fairy tales to amuse themselves (Stephen Jay Gould had to correct them). Enter just-so stories: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://scienceoveracuppa.com/2016/05/22/the-absurdity-of-just-so-stories-in-explaining-evolution/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwiO0p6_lbPnAhURuRoKHZReB2gQFjADegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw2zHRy_gvbAn7aiTzh1IPKt&ampcf=1&cshid=1580657129407 It is very sad. Truthfreedom
February 2, 2020
February
02
Feb
2
02
2020
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
Scientists are human too? Tell me it ain't so! :)
Top Scientist: UN “Climate Finance” Is Subsidy for Kleptocracy - 26 January 2016 Excerpt: Dr. Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist with unassailable scientific credentials, told The New American in an interview after his speech that climate science was far from settled, and that taxpayer money distributed by governments was buying the cooperation of scientists. He also suggested that human impacts on the climate, if there are any, are likely to be so tiny as to be completely insignificant. “The climate has always been changing — warming and cooling, warming and cooling,” Singer said. “So we assume that this is a continuing process. The fact that we are now fairly well advanced in the industrial revolution — it has no influence on natural forcing, we don't affect what the sun does, we don't affect the volcanoes. So the null hypothesis, which means the normal way events go, we would assume that all changes in climate, even today, are due to the same kinds of natural forcing.” The burden of proof, then, is on the alarmists demanding trillions of dollars and vast new controls over humanity under the guise of battling alleged anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) — not the other way around. “The null hypothesis that has to be disproven or amended is that natural forcings are changing the climate, simply because it's always been that way and we would assume that it would continue that way,” Singer emphasized. “So the burden of proof definitely has to be on the people who want to control CO2.” Other speakers at the summit emphasized that CO2 is the gas of life, not pollution. https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22402-top-scientist-un-climate-finance-is-subsidy-for-kleptocracy?
bornagain77
February 2, 2020
February
02
Feb
2
02
2020
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply