Lies or just stupidity?

It's indeed consequential when there's any degree of "being asked to back down from their findings". That points to falsifying data, doesn't it? Again, how can any degree of that be excusable, let alone "inconsequencial?"

That I'd like to know.
 
That's a shame. I know there comes a great personal sense of satisfaction when approaching the end of a research project and you just want to share this feeling/info with everyone who'll listen. To have someone come come along and tell you to shutup, or worse, change your findings...it's just a slap in the face.

Actually, it's much more than that, because in this case the findings were to lead to major policy changes and things of that sort. So now it's a slap in everyone's face.

love
nick, the psychology major.
 
What I don't understand is why they even bother to pay a professional to make a study when they really only need to hire someone to write a paper. In my mind, fake numbers are fake numbers; so I shouldn't be paying taxes that support the grants of scientists who can't even say what they find. Until now I thought the first amendment right was freedom of speech.
 
Carefully read the article.

Nobody is claiming numbers were faked; merely that conclusions (professional opinions) were infrequently stated differently than the "scientist" would have liked.

What this smacks of is a rogue body not happy with the way things are going, so they send a questionnaire out which by design can only paint a poor picture which they want to use to further their agenda, then a like-minded reporter calling attention to it.

Nobody was forced to falsify anything if I remember correctly what I read.

Glen
 
Glen,

I read it again. I still feel that policy matters should not be influencing scientific findings. Even if only one person was told to falsify information ten years ago, it is still wrong. I have heard rumors of these actions outside of the endagered species act studies, and although it has not been proven to me, I believe that there are politicians who are going to bull anybody into helping thier own agendas.

Perhaps this is only my distrust for those who make government policy, but I believe that, for some politicians, every political decision is based on "How will this line my pockets?" not "Will this be best for my constituants?"
 
Jarod,

I probably generally agree with you more in principal than it may seem by this discussion. There, that's out of the way...

I don't have enough information about this particular case to do anything whatsoever beyond speculate. However, as I'd said, this feels very much to me like as much shenanigans as it purports to uncover.

I didn't get the impression that any scientific findings were influenced, or that any information was falsified. What I walked away from it "hearing" was that recommendations based upon the findings/information had been affected.

Also, the sampling was quite a bit on the low side to be forming a very strong negative conclusion about this one, don't you think?

I'm not necessarily a fan of the current administration, but I don't want any part of the thankless job, and the alternative this last time was surely much worse.

Glen
 
Over time, I've picked up on various times when political clout was used to change scientific findings. The threat of budget cuts has lead to a look at research resulst and, surprise /forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif...a new conclusion. Go figure... I realize that I have no references for what I'm saying. I don't doubt the theme of the article. The details might be open to discussion.
 
Don't worry about it Glen, I just get edgy when debates are started about the government. Normally I bite my tongue but this one flipped a switch.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Carefully read the article. Nobody is claiming numbers were faked; Nobody was forced to falsify anything if I remember correctly what I read.

[/ QUOTE ]
Glen,

You're the one who needs to reread the article.

"Science was ignored — and worse, manipulated, to build a bogus rationale for reversal of these listing decisions." More than 20% of survey responders reported they had been "directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information."

The respondents are talking about the altering of scientific data as well as the complete reversal of scientific findings.

[ QUOTE ]
What this smacks of is a rogue body not happy with the way things are going, so they send a questionnaire out...to use to further their agenda

[/ QUOTE ]
By "rogue body" you must mean the globally-respected Union of Concerned Scientists and the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the sampling was quite a bit on the low side

[/ QUOTE ]
National opinion polls by Gallup and others typically use a sample size of a tenth of a percent. A 30% sample, while it might be somewhat self-selected (those who chose to ignore the directive not to respond), is a very large sample for polling purposes.

While government interference in research is nothing new, the current administration has a remarkable track record for choosing ideology over science. This is the president who thinks global warming is an opinion, stem cell research should be limited by religious dogma, and the universe was created in 7 days.

In addition to goverment manipulation of science for political purposes, it has been widely documented that scientists performing research paid for by corporations are much more likely to come to conclusions favorable to their funders. No surprise!

One of the most telling tales of this kind of manipulation was the discovery of the cancer-curing properties of laetrile, a derivative of apricot pits. The research of the Japanese-American scientist who discovered this, working at Memorial Sloan-Kettering, was considered to be so flawless that his articles were routinely accepted at major professional journals without peer review.

Suddenly his findings were called into question, apparently couldn't be replicated, his funding was removed, and he was ordered not to speak publicly about his research. Consequently the most promising cure for cancer, one that couldn't be patented and profited from, had to move to Mexico.

The PR man at Memorial Sloan-Kettering who was ordered to issue press releases falsely undermining the laetrile research, later quit in disgust and is now one of the world's foremost experts on alternative cancer therapies.

This is just one of thousands of such travesties in which political ideology or corporate profits (often the same thing) have squelched some of the best science. So it goes!

- Robert
 
Excellent rebute Robert.

On to add that while I was a contracting ranger with the USFS, the herbicide combination 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T was purchased by the feds to use on public property to release hardwood competition on over 60% of federal forest land to promote faster plantation development of conifers for private industry.

Thousands of documented health complaints were met with refusal to both compile the data and assist in treatment intervention citing the entire time negative-health effect studies written only by the manufacturers of said substances. All studies found to include falsified information through litigation underway by veteran's groups seeking compensation for exposures to Agent Orange, they very same stuff.

Along with the new studies implicating disease to exposure, federal help for the defendants came from the very agencies designed to protect public health. Other suppressed studies came to light, and we won, the ones who lived.

To falsify or censor a lab report that detrimentally questions a substance or an action is tantamount to complicity in committing murder. And the current administration has been found to be more committed to suppress data than anthing I've ever experienced. Not an excuse for the failing "war on terror", rather, an overt attempt to allow industry to profit at any and all costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom