tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4516432143173419194.post4343305203096466531..comments2023-10-23T17:28:57.604-04:00Comments on The Other 95%: How to Retard Scientific ProgressKevin Zelniohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14192385384151149566noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4516432143173419194.post-65893213871599296952008-11-08T10:12:00.000-05:002008-11-08T10:12:00.000-05:00Cool, thank you for the feedback! Hopefully Obama ...Cool, thank you for the feedback! Hopefully Obama will be friendlier to science than Bush was, and people start getting the funding they need.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4516432143173419194.post-28357101015834368522008-11-06T01:13:00.000-05:002008-11-06T01:13:00.000-05:00Kelly, blogs are meant to be archived discussions ...Kelly, blogs are meant to be archived discussions that we can keep coming back to at anytime! So its no worry. The case is never closed on science progress and funding. <BR/><BR/>It is my view, much like my coblogger Eric, that science funding come from as many variety of sources as possible. The more the merrier. But you bring up a good point about funding from private companies. It has been shown in the past that certain companies, in particular drug development companies as you mention, pressure scientists to find the "right" results. I don't know how this pressure really means anything though. The peer review system, as imperfect as it is, is set up to catch dishonesties and misleading/wrong interpretations. It does a fair job for the most part. Even after a publication, eventually a result may be refuted by future research from another lab. My point is that given time wrong interpretations and dishonest publications will be discovered one way or another. I would love to know what this rate is for Biology, but I do remember seeing something about this in the last 2 years. <BR/><BR/>It is also known, as we observed in the Bush Jr. administration, that government can suppress findings or put pressure on government funded researchers as well. NGOs and conservation groups might only report results that favor their agendas as well. You could take the cynics view that everything should be taken with a grain of salt, but that isn't very productive. <BR/><BR/>As a researcher, I feel the government should fund a majority of basic research because most, if not all, basic research benefits the general public. Government can also incentivize researchers for promoting educational outreach, hiring unrepresented minorities/disabled people, purchasing american made tools and products, etc etc. But corporations have a role in providing funding for research that leads to commercial applications. IBM, Johnson & Johnson, John Deere are all examples or large corporations that have heavily invested in researchers both within the company and in academia. Non-profits also have an important role in funding research often with little tangible benefit to the general public and little commercial application. For example, protecting watersheds and coastlines is extremely important and have functional benefits to society at large (water filtration and erosion prevention). <BR/><BR/>On your last point about getting enough money. That is why a constant source of funding from government for basic research is vital. The scientific community has a pool from the compete for funds that is relatively stable. Corporate funding, and especially non-profits funding can be highly volatile at times. So some years will be better than other but at least there is a baseline.Kevin Zelniohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14192385384151149566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4516432143173419194.post-42207685585472216952008-11-05T16:24:00.000-05:002008-11-05T16:24:00.000-05:00Kelly,not a problem (old post) glad to open the di...Kelly,not a problem (old post) glad to open the discussion again. Take everything I say with a grain of salt, I'm not a researcher, but a student who works for/with researching professors. <BR/><BR/>No, we can't count on them getting enough money from philanthropists, etc. But... <BR/><BR/>My personal opinion is that we should have a good mix of funding sources. Federal and State Governments, philanthropy organizations and private sources including the commercial sector. Yes there is pressure to come up with results, but that is there no matter where the funding comes from. Even philanthropic fellowships seem to have a certain pressure. Different funding sources bring different issues that scientists must consider for ethical issues, but each is valuable. <BR/><BR/>My main concern is what I perceive as a sharp decline in funding for basic research, especially as government funding is cut.Eric Heupelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18327896268176961009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4516432143173419194.post-49104895055873721502008-11-05T11:45:00.000-05:002008-11-05T11:45:00.000-05:00I have a question about where the funding for scie...I have a question about where the funding for science should come from. Obviously it seems that funding should come from the private sector, but what worries me is the large number of cases where scientists are pressured from donors to do certain research and reach certain results. This happens in the drug industry all the time. It's nice to think that philanthropists would just donate money to universities and allow them to do whatever research they desire, but can we really count on them getting enough money? (Sorry to pull up such an old post, by the way, I'm a newbie libertarian and I'm trying to figure this all out.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4516432143173419194.post-11702053852546387682008-07-27T20:42:00.000-04:002008-07-27T20:42:00.000-04:00Excellent, I missed this one when you originally p...Excellent, I missed this one when you originally posted it... the quote is actually from one of Szilard's sci-fi short stories (multi-talented man he was...) called <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Voice-Dolphins-Stories-Stanford-Nuclear/dp/0804717540/tag=heupelcom&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325" REL="nofollow">The Voice of the Dolphins: And Other Stories</A>. The particular story is titled The Mark Gable Foundation and I highly recommend it.<BR/><BR/>Gave my copy of the book to the head of the department after she lamented what she perceived to be a trend towards awards of high value research grants to whatever was currently "in vogue".Eric Heupelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18327896268176961009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4516432143173419194.post-14716371746159070412007-08-08T23:07:00.000-04:002007-08-08T23:07:00.000-04:00LOL thanks, consider it both. its accidentally iro...LOL thanks, consider it both. its accidentally ironic... I fixed it thoughKevin Zelniohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14192385384151149566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4516432143173419194.post-87964657956729273182007-08-08T23:04:00.000-04:002007-08-08T23:04:00.000-04:00The only thing I can't work out is if the misspell...The only thing I can't work out is if the misspelling of 'scientific' in the title is accident or irony :-).Christopher Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4516432143173419194.post-67857806285753674562007-08-08T23:02:00.000-04:002007-08-08T23:02:00.000-04:00Nice post. I've given you a link.Nice post. I've given you a link.Christopher Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.com