Political Interference in the Scientific Process

[Frinkenstein]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The original point of this thread was to discuss the government's suppression and misrepresentation of valid scientific data.

[/ QUOTE ]
We are discussing whether the government has a valid role in scientific data. I'd say that's on topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, would you say that the government should be allowed to manipulate scientific data to support its policies?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what you're referring to...

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? The government has a huge hand in suppressing and falsifying research to serve their purposes in the War on drugs. 90% of what kids were taught about drugs in school in the 80s is flat out lies, straight from the government. It's been going on since the 30s.

[Frinkenstein]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what you're referring to...

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? The government has a huge hand in suppressing and falsifying research to serve their purposes in the War on drugs. 90% of what kids were taught about drugs in school in the 80s is flat out lies, straight from the government. It's been going on since the 30s.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not know that (I am canadian living in Canada), but considering the government in charge and their history of this sort of thing in the last few years, I am not surprised to hear that.

[ShakeZula06]

Poofler,
[ QUOTE ]
The utilitarian problem is that private charity will almost certainly fund less science than taxation.

[/ QUOTE ]
You could provide a venue for the average Joe to invest in private research. Private Research companies that work for profit by collecting royalties from businesses who use the fruits of their research or selling their intellectual property to businesses. If it's not going to be funded this way it would be deemed unprofitable and thus isn't it a waste to put money towards it?
[ QUOTE ]
useful science where private corporations have little interest?

[/ QUOTE ]
Corporations may have very little interest in funding new technologies because they'd rather lobby some officials to get them to externalize the costs onto the taxpayers. It's only logical to think that businesses would begin funding more research in the event that government funded research stopped.


Frink,

[ QUOTE ]
Well, would you say that the government should be allowed to manipulate scientific data to support its policies?

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course not.

[Frinkenstein]

[ QUOTE ]
Frink,

[ QUOTE ]
Well, would you say that the government should be allowed to manipulate scientific data to support its policies?

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank goodness - at least we agree on that!!! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The utilitarian problem is that private charity will almost certainly fund less science than taxation.

[/ QUOTE ]
You could provide a venue for the average Joe to invest in private research. Private Research companies that work for profit by collecting royalties from businesses who use the fruits of their research or selling their intellectual property to businesses. If it's not going to be funded this way it would be deemed unprofitable and thus isn't it a waste to put money towards it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't we already essentially have this? Merck has investors, Merck relies on R&D to produce profitable drugs. I agree that where there is a forseeable near-term profit, private companies will fill the void. Even then, the problem is business will of course produce research that is most profitable, not necessarily what is best for consumers. Such as drugs that treat, rather than cure. Business will also neglect research with expensive and long time horizons. One company often cannot bear the risk associated with more speculative ventures, even if they are EV+. Something as large as government pools risk.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]




Thanks for making this excellent post which wholly substantiates all my objections to government funding of science.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly don't think you understand what you read.

The workhorses of NIH are not doing bogus research. They are doing exceptional work. It's the politically appointed heads of certain committees that write press releases and lawyers that are suppressing science. The work is getting done, the papers are being published in science (which is a private organization). The whole system monitors itself rather well at the lower levels. If you don't get results you don't get into Science, Nature, Lancet, etc which are all private entities. Anyone with a clue knows what is going on. And peer review works fantastically well because the best way to get famous is by proving everyone else wrong.

What you want to do kill the scientists that are doing good work to solve the problem of politicians and lawyers that are spinning science at the media level. This is like the French committing suicide and hoping that will stop the Germans from invading. It is quite possibly the dumbest solution I could possibly think of. Not only are you killing the people performing good work but you are basically leaving the companies like Philip morris without opposition. You are HELPING the corrupt politicians by giving them their wildest dreams. The CDC and the NIH spent a lot of time gathering proof that tobacco caused cancer. It was a long, hard, and expensive battle because Philip Morris played very very dirty. Who is going to fight those kinds of battles when NIH and CDC gets axed?

Meh, that's off topic. I really don't care to discuss that question. I just wanted to point out how jarringly stupid natedogg's "only solution" was. "QUICK! THE GERMANS ARE COMMING. WE HAVE TO STOP THEM! SHOOT YOURSELVES! IT'S THE ONLY WAY!!!!!!!!!!"

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Frink,

[ QUOTE ]
Well, would you say that the government should be allowed to manipulate scientific data to support its policies?

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank goodness - at least we agree on that!!! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Political manipulation of science begins as soon as the politicians are given the purse strings. Its unavoidable, you can't legislate people's personal preferences away, which is why prohibitions, gun regulations and virtually all legislation are dommed to failure.

[Chromis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can I get a monetary commitment right now?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is it any of your business?
[ QUOTE ]
It's really easy to say "yeah, I'll donate to science" on a forum.

[/ QUOTE ]
Heh, I'm a poor college student that plays small stakes no limit and works crappy college student jobs. I don't have money to spare right now.
[ QUOTE ]
It's quite another when your money is physically leaving your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that it might actually be -EV for me to donate to scientific funding, yet you want to force me to do it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Private money applied to research isn't a donation. It is an investment.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can I get a monetary commitment right now?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is it any of your business?
[ QUOTE ]
It's really easy to say "yeah, I'll donate to science" on a forum.

[/ QUOTE ]
Heh, I'm a poor college student that plays small stakes no limit and works crappy college student jobs. I don't have money to spare right now.
[ QUOTE ]
It's quite another when your money is physically leaving your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that it might actually be -EV for me to donate to scientific funding, yet you want to force me to do it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Private money applied to research isn't a donation. It is an investment.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not always true. Why do you think Harvard has such a large endowment?