Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Scientists Say They Are Told to Alter Finding
tree3075 writes "The LA Times is reporting that a survey by the Union of Concerned Scientists and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility has found hundreds of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scientists have been instructed to change findings to favor business interests. I'm not surprised anymore when I read these things."
...who don't need direction to skew their results.
Fuck you and your anti-republican group-think. I'm a moderate liberal, but this knee-jerk republican bashing over anything and everything is getting ridiculous. Did it ever occur to you that "those red staters" might have honest and well thought-out reasons for being republican? Did it ever occur to you that two intelligent enlightened people can have an honest disagreement over politics?
Mod me flaimbait for saying "Fuck", but at least mod the parent post flamebait for grossly generalizing and insulting a large class of people.
Let's just consider the source, i.e. the LA times which has a 10/1 ratio of liberal versus conservative responses in the letter's to the editors section.
The LA times hasn't been worth reading for 15plus years...this from a native Angelino that grew up on the times!
Have you compiled your kernel today??
If anything, Clinton was a better raper of the environment that Bush will ever be. That's why Clinton is often referred to as the greatest Republican president of all time.
You see that brine there? That's my brine.
I suppose I'm just some unamerican hippie
No, it's not you. It's not your fault that you approach the world from a survival-of-the-species point of view and don't believe that a magical lovingbutvengeful fairy king in the sky who is going to come down and destroy all of existence while taking his faithful undead paladins to live in magical fairy land in the sky to forever stroke his diefic ego to remind him just how lovingbutvengeful he is.
These people?.
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
-- Bill Clinton in 1998
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
-- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
(this from a speech to the Pentagon staff and the Joint Chiefs is an excellent read. Saying almost exactly the same things Bush was saying in 2002.)
"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein wiill continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
I thought it was your mom.
We need opposing views. Otherwise, how can we say Linux rules/sucks and Windows rules/sucks while everyone says BSD is either dead or alive and Goatse shows us libertarian concepts.
I actually remember a time when right-wing and libertarian opinion on this site was as common as all this leftist drivel. Then all the college English-Lit majors thought it would be so kewl to come and hang out with the nerds. Fuck off commie wankers!
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
So the point here is that we can't take what scientists say at face value, because the chances are good they may have been co-opted.
So all that stuff about evolution and global warming and everything else we're told is the gospel truth could be little more than a load of cow patties.
Right?
When I started college I wanted to be a biologist. After a year of wrangling with lame pseudo science I just plain gave up on biology. Biologists tend to make up some wild ass assertion and try to find the facts to meet that assertion. The straw that broke the camel's back was when a lab professor gave me a "B" because I wouldn't fudge a lab experiment. The experiment was supposed to show a specific photosynthetic reaction in the absence of light. During the weekend some lab assistant left the lab door open and spoiled the experiment. The lab professor said to pretend that the experiment had gone as planned. I spoke to her and said I didn't think that was a good precedent to set with students and she just got mad at me. The paper I turned in explained the failed experiment as well as what should have happened. She hosed me by giving nearly everyone else an "A" and me a "B" in what should have been easy credit. Only one of the two non-"A" grades I earned in undergrad school. Both were for disagreeing with a professor and standing my ground.
So I think a bigger problem is that the biology field is populated with too many pseudo-soft science adherents. What is taken for science in the biology community is shameful.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
"Technical information" is not the same as data. Yes, someone was quoted saying that, but the study didn't say it, that I saw. "Technical information" can include lots of things other than what "data" implies to me.
But maybe I'm not reading it properly? I dunno.
But again, that is not what the article is alleging. They're saying that they're being ordered to conceal or even change data, to fit foregone conclusions which benefit industry.
That is how *they see it.* If we knew the issue they were referring it, would we come to the same conclusion, that this is what happened? This is what I am skeptical of.
I've known a lot of scientists. They come to their conclusions, and in the end, they don't like anyone changing anything. They take it personally, and they often ascribe motives unreasonably to the people doing them this horrible injustice (as they see it).
I am not questioning their science as much as I am their judgment in perceiving the situations they are referring to.
Can you at least agree that if this was happening, it would be a problem?
Too vague. Let's make up a scenario or two.
If there's a study that says there's 20% more pollutants in the air than 5 year ago, and they were told to change it, this would be a problem.
Now, let's say the same study also extrapolates the data and says that in 20 years, we'll have 100% more pollution, assuming all related factors or growth in factors will remain constant. Well, I'd want to remove that from the final study too, because it's nonsense. I mean, it's true, but that assumption is unwarranted and its inclusion wouldn't serve any scientific purpose.
And don't tell me that's an unreasonable scenario, because it isn't.
I don't see any reason to believe that all of the interventions were of the innocent, correct, fact-checking variety in your example.
Neither do I. I wouldn't do that. Likewise, I don't see any reason to believe that all -- or any -- of them are less innocent. I can't say without knowing well the specifics of an individual case.