Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiBudding young scientists are taught that the nation's scientific enterprise reflects an unblinkered search for truth, conducted by dispassionate researchers divorced from preconceived bias or monetary gain. Alas, in the real world, far too many scientists have hired themselves out to the highest bidders -- corporate interests that use their science-for-hire papers to cast doubt on the facts that our planet is warming, smoking kills, and toxic chemicals can cause birth defects.
In recent years, these ongoing campaigns to stop regulations that would reduce carbon emissions, clean up our food, air and water, or control tobacco have been joined by a war on government-funded science itself, targeted against scientists who work to promote public health and a cleaner environment. Budgets have been slashed. Good scientists have been turned into whistleblowers because their global warming reports have been quashed, their clean air analyses ignored and their species protection plans shelved.
In the health care arena, where skyrocketing costs are the primary reason 50 million Americans do not have insurance, drug and medical device companies have staged a money-driven friendly takeover of the practice of medicine. Physician-researchers on industry's payroll publish papers touting the latest pills or technologies based on flimsy or no evidence, and then write a clinical practice guideline suggesting the new, pricier technology ought to be used. Then some of these very same researchers hide their conflicts of interest when publishing in the medical literature, all to further their and their sponsors' bottom lines.
Fortunately, the tide is beginning to turn on this corporate-driven war on science. Laws have been proposed that would protect government scientists who blow the whistle. Congressional investigations have exposed administration efforts to silence scientists and uncovered hidden drug industry payments -- such as those to the psychiatrists who were responsible for promoting anti-psychotic-drug use in thousands of kids. Laws have been proposed to eliminate conflicts of interest on federal advisory committees.
This progressive counteroffensive in the war on science will be highlighted at the fourth national Integrity in Science conference on July 11 in Washington, sponsored by the Center for Science in the Public Interest. This year's theme, "Rejuvenating Public Sector Science," will illuminate a path out of the current morass. Only by bolstering the resources available to government agencies charged with protecting public health and the environment and affirming their authority to do their jobs can industry's efforts to undermine sound science be defeated.
The conference will feature award-winning climate scientist James Hansen, who heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and who was the first to focus global attention on the growing urgency of the climate crisis when he testified before a Senate Committee in 1988. Hansen is recognized as one of the world's foremost authorities on the need for immediate action to avert climate disaster, and can attest to the powerful forces that have fought to keep his message from reaching the public.
In addition to Hansen's talk, other panel sessions will focus on insulating alternative energy research from industry attacks, protecting scientist whistleblowers from retribution, enforcing rigorous conflict of interest disclosure policies by scientific journals, and restoring scientific integrity to government agencies entrusted with conservation of wildlife and natural resources. Congressman Brad Miller, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the House Committee on Science and Technology will speak on "Preserving Scientific Integrity: The Role of Congressional Oversight."
The conference begins at 9:00 am on July 11, 2008 at the Ronald Reagan International Center in Washington, DC. Register and see the full agenda at http://cspinet.org/integrity/conflictedscience_conf.html.
Science and the rationality it brings to government decisionmaking has a crucial role to play in solving the climate, energy and health care crises. CSPI's Rejuvenating Public Sector Science conference will be of interest to anyone interested in helping to put these issues squarely on the agenda of the next administration.
Kirsten Stade manages the Integrity in Science Project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
23 Comments so far
Show AllIn order for scientific integrity to flourish, a signal must be sent and certain fraudulent scientists must be prosecuted. Like the ones on these links. It's that simple.
http://www.bccmeteorites.com/misconduct-planetary.html
http://www.bccmeteorites.com/NASAcert.html
SRD-BCCM
~ HYBRIDOMA2001 ~
Thank you, I will read it.
I imagine you're having your big door ( and laundry dryer ) open these days ?
Namaste
Thomas More. It just occurred to me that your question of "where?" might be meant for me. I have been posting here ince the day it began on CD. Many times have I typed the words,"separation of Church and State."
Thomas More, from the Bill of Rights; Amendment I: Freedom of religion, speech, and the press; rights of assembly and petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
sup.presence, have you read Wiliam James' "Variety of Religious Experiences"? I ask this question because you seem to be a person who is following a spiritual path in life, while dealing with the physical realities.
If you haven't read the book, please do so if you have the time. It's difficult reading at first, but if you can get past the first 50 or 100 pages, you'll adjust to Williams' way of writing and find it a very good book.
Why don't you attend the conference she is writing about and raise these issues? It's July 11 in DC.
...
MANY of these comments here are either off topic, or reinforce the ideologization of scientitific research that this conference is trying to address. It is also disturbing how postmodernism (physical reality is a social-political construct) has seeped into peoples thinking.
Publicly funded science nearly always few restrictions, while corporte-funded "science" (really pseudoscience) is always looking for a result from the research that helps it's bottom line. And if a dedicated public funding source is used - the proceeds from a specific tax - it can assure complete scientific independent thought. In contrast, even the best private philanthropy can have strings attached.
But there is a another aspect to this, in applied science and technology that this article doesn't touch. And this is all the beneficial technologies and ideas come out of publicly funded universities or government facilities like the NIH, only to get privatized by the granting of excessively broad patents. This has happened to things from the human genome, to useful drugs, to new battery technologies for electric vehicles to nearly all computer hardware and software. If you accept the concept of "intellectual property rights" which I don't - than this seems like outright theft to me. Most of waht Microsoft sells us was originally developed with public funds. In effect, we were robbed, than made to buy our own stuff back from the thief!
"As I've written many times before, just as there is a separation of Church and State"
Where?
~ MiMiCcS ~
Perhaps the metamorphous of SCIENCE and "RELIGION" is deeper than you suggest:
__ "Science seeks the truth.
__ Religion demands faith in an existing dogma"
For me, science is the study of forms in the physical world, while consciousness ( spirit ) is the study of the form-less ( ineffable or unmanifest ).
Religion is a form-based and too shallow pursuit of spirit, and although constrained by dogma ( as we agree ) -- does offer deeper pursuit behind the walls of monasteries. It's primary purpose has always served the structure of society's control, dispensing hope as needed to quell those straining upon the chains.
The union of form and formless is an AWAKENING underway to imbue all of human existence with deeper meaning, which will necessitate massive changes ( the removal of no longer needed structures that inhibit growth and freedom ).
There is no need to "study" metaphysics to obtain this knowledge, as perceptual evolution is driving us ALL into an entirely unprecedented existence, where upon one might roughly see three stages:
(1) Living or BE'ing primarily a physical existence, sometimes some people having a spiritual experience.
(2) Being essentially a spiritual being, living a physical experience
(3) Becoming a blending of a spiritual being while manifesting physical existence ( "Christ consciousness" )
Recognition of the vector implied is crucial for developing the alignment of personal intent, attention, and later actions that support one's needs.
Namaste
To MiMiCcS, what I discovered as a student of astrophysics made me very happy. At the beginning of the 20th century it was declared that "God was dead."
I have always felt in my heart that there is a purpose to all we see and experience, so I have never rejected any belief system. As William James said, "If it works for you, then fine."
What I discovered to my joy was that quantum physics brings the notion of a higher being back into the equation. "Things" are popping into and out of existence all the time at the subatomic level. As far as I know, nobody can say why this is so. To me it signifies creation occurring constantly -as well as destruction.
Again, my only complaint about the whole issue is putting such studies where they properly belong. If it is science which can be replicated and tested by others to verify a theory or not, then it belongs in the field of science. If it is about matters which transcend our reasoning and ability to verify its truthfulness or not, then it belongs in the field of metaphysics.
Science and technology are like all nouns - they represent things that may be used for good or abused for evil. The issue is in the intent behind the action and their intents are what elites don't want discussed.
"A note on the debate between creationism and the theory of evolution.
People in the rest of the world barely waste time on such a debate. It is clear that a theory is something which can be debunked when evidence proves a theory's faults, but the argument about whether or not there is an intelligent agent behind creation can never be proved nor disproved"
This is another of those divide and rule issues. On the one hand they seek to discredit faith based religion. On the other, creationism being so absurd on any level, it serves to promote science as an alternative religion, with political and corporate controlled scientist leaders like Hansen, the head priest of AGW.
Intelligent design implies a divine hand, using physical and biological laws of nature we call science to evolve the most simplest of life forms, created from a primordial soup, into the various species of increasing complexity through a process of natural selection. The conflict between religion and science is man made for social control via division. While Left and Right argue these issues, the important stuff gets ignored
I believe science (thesis) and religion (anti-thesis) must at some point synthesize into a new belief system, call it what you will. To the religous, I say, who are you to judge the tools God used to create you. If God is the creator, then certainly he created the laws that nature follows too. The undertanding of the laws of nature (science), leads one to an understanding of God the creator. Religion is the study of the divine law of man, while science is the study of the laws of nature. Science must abide by the law of man in it's search to understand the laws of nature, since only in this way can Science be prevented from being controlled by evil to do evil. Both science and religion must be kept from the corruptive influences of corporate governmenet.
Unfortunately, the psychopathic elite behind corporate government have always sought to control the institutions of Science and Religion. Today I believe the psychopaths control all of organized religion and scientific institutions. They have had control for some 50-100 years or more, and we have become a Pathocracy today. Science and technology is being used to do more evil than good.
"Laws have been proposed to eliminate conflicts of interest on federal advisory committees"
Right, so what happens is we end up with thousands of individual fire trucks targeting thousands of individual fires all set by the same arsonist. So why not go after the arsonist? Because fire fighting is big business. So when will the whole establishment finally go up in flames so we can start over?
As I've written many times before, just as there is a separation of Church and State, there needs to be a separation of Corporate and State.
While it's true that the separation of church and state isn't 100% effective, it still provides a good amount of protection. The same would occur with any separation of the corporate world and state, but it would help provide a change in financing elections and scientific work done by the government.
I believe it would at the very least be a step in the right direction. For anyone who has spent considerable time overseas they would notice just how far behind the USA is in the areas of mathematics and science. As mentioned earlier, many of the students in the sciences and engineering are from other countries. They come here to learn from our professors and take that knowledge back home with them to the betterment of their own societies. Yet, it is becoming more and more difficult for those in the USA from recieving the same education the wealthy foriegn students are getting. Education needs to be more affordable for the average student in the USA or we will continue to slide backwards compared to most of the world in the areas of math, science, and engineering.
A note on the debate between creationism and the theory of evolution.
People in the rest of the world barely waste time on such a debate. It is clear that a theory is something which can be debunked when evidence proves a theory's faults, but the argument about whether or not there is an intelligent agent behind creation can never be proved nor disproved. That is why it is left where it belongs: in a class of Metaphysics or philosophy. It's a non-issue. Yet in the USA it is a major distraction and damages a proper education in real science.
The USA is falling behind in so many areas we used to be at or near the top of. A less educated public means a less informed populace when it comes time to vote. And as we make poor choices for those to lead, our society and its laws and constitution suffer. This is where we are today. George Bush would love the entire nation to be as shallow, superficial, and ignorant as he is. It's been known for a long time that an uneducated public is much easier to rule, and those in positions of power will and have taken advantage of this fact. This is where the USA is today for all intents and puposes.
Those readers old enough to remember the days when "air drills" took place will keep in mind this one, most undeniable truth.
Seek the information about your questions from several sources, accepting anything on face value, especially information distributed by ANY government body--or government approved----whether it be a conservative or progressive government--is dangerous.
Air Drills in the fifties public schools where part of the "duck and tuck" propaganda by the US Government was used to help make the "scare " for the "red menace". In reality, no one would have survived a nuclear attack, (or it that "nuculer").
Information/knowledge especially scientific is just the same as clay to a potter----the same clay can either be a bowl, or a cup, or whatever the potter decides to make of it.
Anyone nievely believing information from a "trusted governing" source-------asks to be deceived.
How do real scientists get paid?. Who pays them? Corporations, government and universities pay them. Universities in turn rely on endowments from tax free foundations and corporations and scientists rely on government or coporate grants to fund research, or they work directly for the corporation.
Is the public sector any less corrupt or biased than the private corporate sector. Have we forgotton that the public sector and government is completely beholden and controlled by the corporate sector.
Hence, science has gone fascist as well. Scientists whose projects fulfill a corporate and/or corporate government political agenda are well paid and get grants. Those who threaten the golden goose don't do so well.
Consider Einstein and Nicolas Tesla. One was a political poster boy weak in math and who never worked in a laboratory, who had added to some theories and failed to give credit to them when he published his own theory, and was largely a media creation for political reasons. A genius who happened to serve a political purpose and was rewarded accordingly. Another gave us AC power despite strong opposition from Edison who had heavily invested in DC power, and lived his life in a laboratory inventing things with science that even today is not fully understood. His later ideas for energy and communications threatened the existing political and corporate structures in place, and he could not get adequate funding a died a poor man. Many of his ideas and patents have since been practically applied.
Scientists today who are ambitous and who want funding play the game. The corporate media builds up Hansen because he fulfills the corporate agenda.
Anyone opposed to him gets labelled as a denier.
Criticize Israel= get called anti-semite
Question 9/11 = get called a conspiracy nut
Question AWG = get called a denier
Good science does not mind being questioned. It is welcomed as it is essential to the evolution of science. Today, some of Einstein theories have been questioned and a few shown not to be correct. Science left to itself will always evolve and improve. Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a Law, it can not even be called a theory, it is simply a hypothesis, yet they say it can not be questioned?.
IPCC's AWG is not good science, it is politicized science serving the neo-malthusian globalist agenda. Thats why it resists being questioned and resorts to insults when confronted.
Galileo is the father of modern science. He was forced forced to recant his heliocentrism and spent the last years of his life under house arrest on orders of the Inquisition. Hansen represents the Inquisition. Any idea that questions the new religion of man made global warming must be threatened, like Hansens suggestion that BIg Oil CEO's should be prosecuted. Christianity teaches that man is a sinner. The Malthusian religion of AGW teaches that man sins against the goddess Gaia. Some of it's leaders like Prince Philips say they would love to be reincarnated as a virus to reduce mans population.
Science seeks the truth. Religion demands faith in an existing dogma, such as AGW. Of course, most people have not done the math and looked into AGW in any detail, accepting it to be true as a matter of faith. After all, if Bush and Big Oil say it is not true, it must be true. The irony is that the Peak Oil myth they sell you is also a Hoax, and they deny the AGW hoax. The left has bought into both of them since it fits their Malthusian ideology. Now we have McCain and David Rockefeller going green. That should be a warning sign for anyone with even a trace amount of brain activity.
This is a big area. Obscurantism of evolution in fundamentalist schools, state school boards (Texas for one) rewriting textbooks, engineering grad schools full of foreigners and hardly any Americans, the percentage of patents filed by Americans in step decline, Clean Coal sponsoring high school science fairs...
We are a country of marginally literate people at best. There is always the "brain drain". American salaries bring foreign scientists here. They must be laughing (at our ignorance) all the way to the bank.
It isn't just the gunbearers for Big Corporation who are at fault. Because they were trained to recognize reality, they have a greater moral guilt for "shading" the truth, but there are many others whose "mis"understanding of reality has created a fertile bed for these creatures to propagate in.
Go to any comment section on global warming and you will see numerous scientific wannabes going on at great length about how it is all a fraud. Alexander Cockburn with The Nation has never seen a scientific concept that he can't distort, misunderstand, and misrepresent. Scalia on the SC has made it abundantly clear that he lacks even a Jr. High understanding of scientific principles. During the session on whether the EPA should regulate CO2, his questions showed that he didn't understand even at a 9th grade earth science level. His comments during a session about evolution vs. creationism showed he was even less cognizant of what evolution was all about.
As long as movers and shakers of society are so ill-informed, trying to rectify the situation by protecting real scientists and unmasking the charlatans who work for Big Corp is only a bare beginning. We need to educate the whole populace. The first post suggested a periodical called Science for the People be revived. Until that can happen, there are already ScienceNews, Discover, Scientific American and others who are written for the layman. Making these more readily available would be a small step towards reality education in America.
there will be no rejuvenation of anything in the US until its people recognize that they are being ruled by the multinationals, i.e., foreigners who are working -- very effectively so far -- to destroy their country.
Not indicated is what is meant by "science?" Natural science? Behavioral science? Both? Public discussion usual centers on natural science, when arguably it has the least to do with public policy. Is Kirsten Stade engaging in the same obsessive behavior? Certainly this is unclear.
Additionally, why no mention of "Rejuvenating Public Sector" humanities and fine arts? Is public policy to made with no consideration of the study of humanity? Is public policy to made with no consideration of what makes life worth living? Again, this is unclear.
Needed: Civilian version of ARPA/DARPA for a much needed Dept of Peace
Does anybody here remember the journal Science for the People?
It was published by an editorial collective (with Stephen Jay Gould and other progressives on the board) out of Cambridge, MA (the office was above Paganini's Ice cream, yum). Unfortunately it folded in 1989 (over incompetent accounting that left them with a heavy tax debt).
Wouldn't it be time to resurrect something like it?