[Vo]:​OT: Do Scientists Lose Credibility When They Become Political?

[H LV]

​​
Do Scientists Lose Credibility When They Become Political?

A new study suggests that, contrary to common fears, the answer is no.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/02/when-scientists-become-advocates-do-they-lose-credibility/518157/

Re: [Vo]:N.Y. Times report on corruption in academic science

[Jed Rothwell]

Chris Zell  wrote:

The greatest threat to the American way of life might be that things aren’t
> considered corrupt if they are legal.  Thus, we have ads for prescription
> drugs on TV and Congress commonly doesn’t read bills before passage.
>

If you are referring to Obamacare, you are emphatically wrong about that.
My daughter helped draft that law. She and others read the bill, many, many
times. She was working for a doctor's collective, which is like a union.
Members of congress may not have read the whole thing, but their staff sure
did, and so did hundreds of consultants and people working for insurance
companies, doctor's collectives, and so on. It was available on the
internet for anyone to read.

Most of it was easy to understand. Just a lot of detail. All of it that
detail was included for good reasons. Prosaic reasons. I read parts of it
that pertained to computers, and discussed it with the people drafting the
law. For example, it said that an insurance contract has to be of a limited
length. This was defined as a certain number of pages (10 pages?) when
printed on standard 8.5" x 11" paper in 12-point type. You have to spell
that sort of thing out in a law. Otherwise some insurance company might
print 8-point type (small print) in 50 pages, which is too much for the
average customer to understand.

You may not agree with the ideology of Obamacare, but you cannot say the
law is difficult to understand, or that it was withheld from the public.

Saying it was "too complicated" is a little like saying the documents &
programs that constitute the Apache Web Server are too complicated. A web
server is inherently complicated technology. It is a big system. It takes
lots of documents, specifications, details, warnings, thousands of lines of
code, review boards, and blah, blah, blah to make it work. See:

https://www.apache.org/

If we could code Apache in 200 lines of C++ and have it run faultlessly
without any maintenance . . . Well, gee, that would be great! But it
doesn't work that way. An insurance-based healthcare system will be at
least as complicated as a web server.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:N.Y. Times report on corruption in academic science

[Chris Zell]

The greatest threat to the American way of life might be that things aren’t 
considered corrupt if they are legal.  Thus, we have ads for prescription drugs 
on TV and Congress commonly doesn’t read bills before passage.

Currently, there may be some investigation about dandelion root extract’s 
effect on cancer (forms of leukemia in particular).  We can rest assured the 
FDA and drug companies will find a way to obscure or suppress any positive 
results.

Re: [Vo]:N.Y. Times report on corruption in academic science

[John Berry]

Cancer is IMO easily treated.

But the treatments don't lead to patented medicine or expensive treatments.

I have zero fear of cancer.

John

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> John Berry  wrote:
>
> http://www.australiannationalreview.com/cancer-research-
>> fraud-claims-nobel-prize-winner/
>>
>>
> This article is titled:
>
> "Most cancer research is a fraud, claims Nobel Prize Winner"
>
> I think that title overstates what the article says. I would title it:
>
> "Most cancer research is a dead end"
>
> . . . or "most cancer research is futile, or barking up the wrong tree."
> That is also the case with most cold fusion research. Also with most
> product development, programming languages, new grocery store food snack
> offerings, and just about every other attempt at innovation. Most of the
> time, most new ideas fail. That's unfortunate, but it is not fraud.
>
> On the other hand, there is also fraud. Also lots of sloppy research that
> should not pass peer-review, but it does. I have no way to judge whether it
> is "mostly" fraud and slop, or mostly an honest mistake. In cold fusion, as
> far as I know, most mistakes are honest.
>
> It is impossible to know an experiment is a mistake until you have done it.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:N.Y. Times report on corruption in academic science

[Jed Rothwell]

John Berry  wrote:

http://www.australiannationalreview.com/cancer-research-fraud-claims-
> nobel-prize-winner/
>
>
This article is titled:

"Most cancer research is a fraud, claims Nobel Prize Winner"

I think that title overstates what the article says. I would title it:

"Most cancer research is a dead end"

. . . or "most cancer research is futile, or barking up the wrong tree."
That is also the case with most cold fusion research. Also with most
product development, programming languages, new grocery store food snack
offerings, and just about every other attempt at innovation. Most of the
time, most new ideas fail. That's unfortunate, but it is not fraud.

On the other hand, there is also fraud. Also lots of sloppy research that
should not pass peer-review, but it does. I have no way to judge whether it
is "mostly" fraud and slop, or mostly an honest mistake. In cold fusion, as
far as I know, most mistakes are honest.

It is impossible to know an experiment is a mistake until you have done it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:N.Y. Times report on corruption in academic science

[John Berry]

http://www.australiannationalreview.com/cancer-research-fraud-claims-nobel-prize-winner/

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I believe there is a great deal of corruption in academic science. Several
> cold fusion researchers, biologists and others have told me about incidents
> such as harassment, publishing fraudulent data, stealing data during
> peer-review, and so on. Academic science has a public reputation of being
> ethical and directed only toward "learning the truth." I believe it is more
> political than the public realizes.
>
> The *New York Times* today published an article about an important
> scientist who has been accused of unethical behavior:
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/science/cancer-carlo-croce.html
>
> Years of Ethics Charges, but Star Cancer Researcher Gets a Pass
>
> Quoting the lede:
>
>
> "Dr. Carlo Croce is among the most prolific scientists in an emerging area
> of cancer research involving what is sometimes called the “dark matter” of
> the human genome. A department chairman at Ohio State University and a
> member of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Croce has parlayed his
> decades-long pursuit of cancer remedies into a research empire: He has
> received more than $86 million in federal grants as a principal
> investigator and, by his own count, more than 60 awards.
>
> With that flamboyant success has come a quotient of controversy. Some
> scientists argue that Dr. Croce has overstated his expansive claims for the
> therapeutic promise of his work, and that his laboratory is focused more on
> churning out papers than on carefully assessing its experimental data.
>
> But a far less public scientific drama has been playing out in the
> Biomedical Research Tower that houses Dr. Croce’s sprawling laboratory on
> Ohio State’s campus in Columbus.
>
> Over the last several years, Dr. Croce has been fending off a tide of
> allegations of data falsification and other scientific misconduct,
> according to federal and state records, whistle-blower complaints and
> correspondence with scientific journals obtained by The New York Times. . .
> ."
>
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:N.Y. Times report on corruption in academic science

[Jed Rothwell]

I believe there is a great deal of corruption in academic science. Several
cold fusion researchers, biologists and others have told me about incidents
such as harassment, publishing fraudulent data, stealing data during
peer-review, and so on. Academic science has a public reputation of being
ethical and directed only toward "learning the truth." I believe it is more
political than the public realizes.

The *New York Times* today published an article about an important
scientist who has been accused of unethical behavior:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/science/cancer-carlo-croce.html

Years of Ethics Charges, but Star Cancer Researcher Gets a Pass

Quoting the lede:


"Dr. Carlo Croce is among the most prolific scientists in an emerging area
of cancer research involving what is sometimes called the “dark matter” of
the human genome. A department chairman at Ohio State University and a
member of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Croce has parlayed his
decades-long pursuit of cancer remedies into a research empire: He has
received more than $86 million in federal grants as a principal
investigator and, by his own count, more than 60 awards.

With that flamboyant success has come a quotient of controversy. Some
scientists argue that Dr. Croce has overstated his expansive claims for the
therapeutic promise of his work, and that his laboratory is focused more on
churning out papers than on carefully assessing its experimental data.

But a far less public scientific drama has been playing out in the
Biomedical Research Tower that houses Dr. Croce’s sprawling laboratory on
Ohio State’s campus in Columbus.

Over the last several years, Dr. Croce has been fending off a tide of
allegations of data falsification and other scientific misconduct,
according to federal and state records, whistle-blower complaints and
correspondence with scientific journals obtained by The New York Times. . .
."


- Jed

[Vo]:LENR DOES NOT NEED FACTOIDS

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/03/mar-08-2017-lenr-does-not-need-factoids.html

peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com