Scientists stage mock funeral to protest cuts to research
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Good study, I agree with the points made about the depth and breadth of knowledge gained from research, and the variety of benefits gained by society that justify public research.
People who don't like to see tax dollars going towards public benefit are missing the message arising from the statement, United we stand.
This is where you really show your true partisan colors and an ignorance of reality. It is not widely talked about by scientists, but in the US the largest federal funding for science usually comes from Republicans, and similar things happened in Canada when the Conservatives came to power: they pumped a lot more money into NSERC. Strangely, most scientists lean left when their most ardent supporters seem to come from the right--unless you are a climate scientist.
Which must be what is confusing you. The fact that the Conservatives attack science that conflicts with their politics. Don't be confused, the right funds science at least as much as the left. You want to stay ahead of the curve in this world today, you fund science as much as possible.
Im 100% all for Funding... In not 100% all for funding wasted just like the silly little experiments i cited above. a 1.5Million dollar study to show that obese young men are less likely to find a spouse than their slimmer counterparts??? No, Im not for waste.... No one should be... Just because they yell, scream and protest does NOT make them right. Thats just sheer stupidity... No million dollar study needed.
Its very clear, they simply can not be trusted now with any funding.. Till that changes... I say cut them off the teet.
H,mmm
H,mmm
When you can show that there's more harm done by funding them than there is by not funding them and more good done by not funding them than by funding them, I'll go along with you. But it seems as if you avoided reading what was in the link I provided.
If they're funded to research the effect of marigolds on earthworms and they research the effect of marigolds on earthworms, how are they breaching any trust? I suggest that folk in charge of the purse strings not dole out funds for questionable research.
I got to the bottom of this....
"The union representing tens of thousands of federal scientists says the Conservative government is unfairly silencing its members".
Ahh yes, there you have it.... the Union. You think this has ANYTHING to do with good or bad science? Your kidding yourself... Its about lining thier own pockets.
"The union representing tens of thousands of federal scientists says the Conservative government is unfairly silencing its members".
Ahh yes, there you have it.... the Union. You think this has ANYTHING to do with good or bad science? Your kidding yourself... Its about lining thier own pockets.
That's why I asked fletch to post links to the actual projects or papers. A researcher could get a grant to study longitudinal trends in obese people. As more people become obese, that will have consequences, and it's good to have some epidemiological data on what is happening with that sub-population. One finding from their data might have been lower marriage rates among obese men. It is what it is. It doesn't mean that a researcher was given $1.5 million to evaluate if obese men have a lower rate of marriage than non-obese men. In fact it is almost certainly not what the project proposal was aiming to investigate. It's just a finding.
Context matters. If fletch actually did work at NRC on writing reports and protocols, then they know that. Makes me wonder what might have happened...
Oh, those (particular) westerners like thinking their **** doesn't stink.
Guess what...it does!
It's not about East and West. It's about small minded individuals who think geography, and geography alone, defines character.
lmao So now you make a blanket attack against unions after you realize you aren't getting anywhere arguing against scientists. Hilarious.
Do you actually have any clue about scientist unions? Or are you just looking for something to throw goofy accusations at?
BTW, it is not just unions saying that gov't wants to hush up scientists.
hehe Yeah, it kind of reminds me of Koko, the Expert on all Things Northern when he says all those researchers up north mostly stay in camp doing nothing but "playing" with their computers.
lol Everything east of the Rockies is eastern.
But jogfree is fun.
Gee you'd think people could just say anything on the internet eh? Lol.
East/West...it's all subjective. If I got on a plane and flew due east of my location, barring some stops for refueling I'd eventually reach Alberta wouldn't I? Hmmm, who's the easterner now! LOLlol Everything east of the Rockies is eastern.
Jogfree can be fun, lol. But confusing it with human psychology/behaviour makes about as much sense as the practice of phrenology. Which is to say none! lol.But jogfree is fun.
His fatigue is more likely from having two lab floors to clean now instead of one. THe cuts to funding have meant that he has to cart the mops around all by himself.
Science is about facts not ideology, it shouldn't be limited and controlled for purely political purposes.
Unfortunately we've been saddled with a federal government that tries to politicize everything.
At it's heart science is a democratic practice, the "not by one voice" philosophy, which is probably why the control freaks feel so threatened by it.
Unfortunately we've been saddled with a federal government that tries to politicize everything.
At it's heart science is a democratic practice, the "not by one voice" philosophy, which is probably why the control freaks feel so threatened by it.
You've just described the entire problem with UN/IPCC in their exploitation of selective science to further a political agenda
The entire AGW movement has relied on the ideal that all dissenters are unduly vilified and renounced.... That's some democracy that you got there
Based on what evidence
The entire AGW movement goes back almost 200 years and is built on solid science, most researchers are committed to doing their jobs.
On the other hand the denial campaign(which starts with a premise that AGW is wrong then tries to prove it) goes back to when industry in the 1980s realized there were serious negative consequences to responding to the science effectively. Solid science as opposed to economic interests, which is more objective do you think?
The AGW case starts with taking real world evidence and determining the most likely scenario that explains it, the denial side starts with the assumption that AGW is wrong and endervours to create as much doubt as possible. The former is much closer to the intent of the scientific method than the later.
There is uncertainty in AGW, there's uncertainty in all science. The only people who claim they're 100% certain about anything are in politics or religion and we all know how often they're right.