Administration's assault on science continues

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

From serious things like threatening DACA to sillier things like mumbling through the national anthem, there are plenty of things that people are attacking Trump for. One thing that isn't getting enough play is the dedicated and continued assault of this administration on valid scientific inquiry.

The most recent example is a new process implemented by Interior that would funnel most discretionary research grants through a one-man review - by a man named Steve Howke - in order to make sure they "align" with "administration priorities." In other words, academic grant proposals will be subjected to political screening.

According to the memo originally obtained by WaPo, it will be Mr. Howke's job to make sure grants are awarded to programs that "promote" a list of policy priorities drafted by Sec. Zinke.

 

[sglowrider]

Haha... the political officer eh? What an administration!

So a guy who fought for the flag and the American way of life implements something akin to what you used to see in Nazi German and Soviet Union.

With any luck, it will be implemented in other Depts and praised by Trump for promoting alternative facts.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

From serious things like threatening DACA to sillier things like mumbling through the national anthem, there are plenty of things that people are attacking Trump for. One thing that isn't getting enough play is the dedicated and continued assault of this administration on valid scientific inquiry.

The most recent example is a new process implemented by Interior that would funnel most discretionary research grants through a one-man review - by a man named Steve Howke - in order to make sure they "align" with "administration priorities." In other words, academic grant proposals will be subjected to political screening.

According to the memo originally obtained by WaPo, it will be Mr. Howke's job to make sure grants are awarded to programs that "promote" a list of policy priorities drafted by Sec. Zinke.

Must be that “small government” I keep hearing self labeled “conservatives” say they support.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

From serious things like threatening DACA to sillier things like mumbling through the national anthem, there are plenty of things that people are attacking Trump for. One thing that isn't getting enough play is the dedicated and continued assault of this administration on valid scientific inquiry.

The most recent example is a new process implemented by Interior that would funnel most discretionary research grants through a one-man review - by a man named Steve Howke - in order to make sure they "align" with "administration priorities." In other words, academic grant proposals will be subjected to political screening.

According to the memo originally obtained by WaPo, it will be Mr. Howke's job to make sure grants are awarded to programs that "promote" a list of policy priorities drafted by Sec. Zinke.

There’s a shocker. Who would think that government funded research is subject to politics?

“Many Americans assume that research funded by the federal government is the most trustworthy form of research. However, nearly every aspect of the federal grant making process is full of political maneuvering and potential bias.”

​

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

There’s a shocker. Who would think that government funded research is subject to politics?

“Many Americans assume that research funded by the federal government is the most trustworthy form of research. However, nearly every aspect of the federal grant making process is full of political maneuvering and potential bias.”

​

LOL. You're really going to share some COC lobbyist crap as though it means anything on this topic? @Aloha Hoosier you should read up on Richard Berman before you like CO's post.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

LOL. You're really going to share some COC lobbyist crap as though it means anything on this topic? @Aloha Hoosier you should read up on Richard Berman before you like CO's post.

Do you deny politics was ever involved with government research before Trump?

Your ad hominem comment is not an argument.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Do you deny politics was ever involved with government research before Trump?

Your ad hominem comment is not an argument.

This is a valid use of ad hominem. I am impeaching the credibility of your source. Berman's groups are pro-industry, anti-government, and specifically, anti-environment and anti-consumer protection, lobbyist groups that pretend to be research groups. They have zero credibility on this issue.

It's actually pretty embarrassing that you'd think this was a good source to share. Either you're extremely gullible, or you're hoping people reading this thread are extremely gullible. Either way, people (and maybe you) need to know that this isn't a credible source.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

This is a valid use of ad hominem. I am impeaching the credibility of your source. Berman's groups are pro-industry, anti-government, and specifically, anti-environment and anti-consumer protection, lobbyist groups that pretend to be research groups. They have zero credibility on this issue.

It's actually pretty embarrassing that you'd think this was a good source to share. Either you're extremely gullible, or you're hoping people reading this thread are extremely gullible. Either way, people (and maybe you) need to know that this isn't a credible source.

I understand your comment about the source. But the question remains: do you deny politics was involved with government research prior to Trump? If you deny that I am not the gullible one. I think this whole thread is another example of Trump critics dumbing themselves down.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I understand your comment about the source. But the question remains: do you deny politics was involved with government research prior to Trump? If you deny that I am not the gullible one. I think this whole thread is another example of Trump critics dumbing themselves down.

Since this is a new policy of Interior, I deny that it was policy before. If you have evidence otherwise, please share it. If all you can do is fall back on platitudinal both-sidesism, what's the point? You can claim "The other guys did it, too!" all you want, but if you don't have any actual evidence, why is it my job to prove you wrong? Hint: it's not. I've provided a story about a new policy of Interior that is troubling. If you have actual evidence to counter my claim, please, feel free to share it. Until then, you are just flapping your lips.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Since this is a new policy of Interior, I deny that it was policy before. If you have evidence otherwise, please share it. If all you can do is fall back on platitudinal both-sidesism, what's the point? You can claim "The other guys did it, too!" all you want, but if you don't have any actual evidence, why is it my job to prove you wrong? Hint: it's not. I've provided a story about a new policy of Interior that is troubling. If you have actual evidence to counter my claim, please, feel free to share it. Until then, you are just flapping your lips.

Look at your own thread title.

Government grants and government-funded research has always been infused with politics and policy priorities. That is not an assault on science and this isn’t bothsideism. It is how government works.

Edit. The ethanol industry is an important exhibit.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Government grants and government-funded research has always been infused with politics and policy priorities.

So you say. But you haven't provided any objective evidence of such.

And you might be right, but anything coming out of CORE is a complete joke to back up such a statement, and you know it.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

LOL. You're really going to share some COC lobbyist crap as though it means anything on this topic? @Aloha Hoosier you should read up on Richard Berman before you like CO's post.

I liked the statement, "Who would think that government funded research is subject to politics? " I liked what I think is objectively true - government funded research is subject to politics. It often determines who gets funding and what research they choose to fund. Obviously, the same is true on corporate funded research. Their agenda determines who gets funding and what research they choose to fund.

 

[37Hoosier]

From serious things like threatening DACA to sillier things like mumbling through the national anthem, there are plenty of things that people are attacking Trump for. One thing that isn't getting enough play is the dedicated and continued assault of this administration on valid scientific inquiry.

The most recent example is a new process implemented by Interior that would funnel most discretionary research grants through a one-man review - by a man named Steve Howke - in order to make sure they "align" with "administration priorities." In other words, academic grant proposals will be subjected to political screening.

According to the memo originally obtained by WaPo, it will be Mr. Howke's job to make sure grants are awarded to programs that "promote" a list of policy priorities drafted by Sec. Zinke.

It was pretty clear he had no idea what the words were to the national anthem that he so cherishes.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I liked the statement, "Who would think that government funded research is subject to politics? " I liked what I think is objectively true - government funded research is subject to politics. It often determines who gets funding and what research they choose to fund. Obviously, the same is true on corporate funded research. Their agenda determines who gets funding and what research they choose to fund.

And what of the results? If research into climate change at a major university finds something counter to prevailing wisdom, I bet that still gets published. If Exxon finds strong evidence of AGW, that goes into the warehouse next to the Ark of the Covenant.

So yes, politics may determine that we do not federally fund research into 9/11 being an inside job or into which aliens are in Area 51. We may determine research into AGW is worthy. But unless, like industrial research, we require a specific result I am not sure there is a problem.

Somewhere there has to be a vetting process or we are spending a couple hundred million on flat earth research. Do we want that?

Edit a typo correction

 

[twenty02]

From serious things like threatening DACA to sillier things like mumbling through the national anthem, there are plenty of things that people are attacking Trump for. One thing that isn't getting enough play is the dedicated and continued assault of this administration on valid scientific inquiry.

The most recent example is a new process implemented by Interior that would funnel most discretionary research grants through a one-man review - by a man named Steve Howke - in order to make sure they "align" with "administration priorities." In other words, academic grant proposals will be subjected to political screening.

According to the memo originally obtained by WaPo, it will be Mr. Howke's job to make sure grants are awarded to programs that "promote" a list of policy priorities drafted by Sec. Zinke.

Since Trump was a political neophyte...and didn't really have a political ideology (outside a few specific areas), what we've seen happen is the hard right do a quiet takeover of much of the federal govt.

Trump didn't know any of these people....and doesn't really care about what they are doing in most of these depts. The WH itself is clearly chaotic, with several different competing fiefdoms. That allows these cabinet secretaries to naturally run their own "priorities".

This specific policy aligns with the New GOP culture war of contempt and disdain for colleges and universities, that I've spoken about before. We saw this in the tax bill, and other admin areas before this.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

And what of the results? If research into climate change at a major university finds something counter to prevailing wisdom, I bet that still gets published. If Exxon finds strong evidence of AGW, that goes into the warehouse next to the Ark of the Covenant.

So yes, politics may determine that we do not federally fund research into 9/11 being an inside job or into which aliens are in Area 51. We may determine research into AGW is worthy. But unless, like industrial research, we require a specific result I am not sure there is a problem.

Somewhere there has to be a vetting process or we are spending a couple hundred million on flat earth research. Do we want that?

Edit a typo correction

I don't think there is necessarily a "problem" with politicized government research. And I don't think it necessarily leads to bad or fraudulent research. (Although the frequency of fraudulent grant seeking seems to be increasing) But I think it is pretty much undeniable that the government will fund the research it is interested in. Bureaucratic empire-building, advancing ideological goals, and capitulating to activists are all forces that focus the government's interest.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

f research into climate change

I don't think the federal government under the Obama administration would have funded a research project intended to show that polar bears are thriving and that climate change is not harmful to them. But that's just me.

Nor would the government fund a research project into how to make a better more powerful round to be used in handguns. The point is that we know because of a number of factors, ideology being one of them, that the government will never fund certain proposals.

 

[hootch1]

I don't think the federal government under the Obama administration would have funded a research project intended to show that polar bears are thriving and that climate change is not harmful to them. But that's just me.

Nor would the government fund a research project into how to make a better more powerful round to be used in handguns. The point is that we know because of a number of factors, ideology being one of them, that the government will never fund certain proposals.

We cannot do any research on "a research project into how to make a better more powerful round to be used in handguns". Any handgun research on disallowed by the self imposed ignorance party. Speaking of political interference on research.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

(Although the frequency of fraudulent grant seeking seems to be increasing)

I’d be interested in reading up on that. I can’t find any stats. Where are you getting this from?

 

[iuwclurker1]

LOL. You're really going to share some COC lobbyist crap as though it means anything on this topic? @Aloha Hoosier you should read up on Richard Berman before you like CO's post.

A fool and his time are soon parted.

In this case, the fools are anyone engaging or even reading CoH's posts. It's not an exercise in intelligent anything. Refuting his pathetic Devil's advocacy is not an exercise in intelligent anything. It's just proof that a fool and his time are soon parted.

Anyone notice how the expose on Trump's White House has forced Trump to attempt to be presidential? Any other reason Trump would hold the joint meeting on immigration and want the bill to be about "love"? The only way to force CoH to be real is to ignore him. It's on you, it's your choice. He can't force you into his cesspool.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I don't think the federal government under the Obama administration would have funded a research project intended to show that polar bears are thriving and that climate change is not harmful to them. But that's just me.

No objective scientist would do such a research project. Valid research doesn't put the conclusion first. Instead, they would ask how the polar bear population is doing, and whether any changes can be connected to climate change. Which has been done. I'm sure the federal government funded at least some of those studies.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

No objective scientist would do such a research project.

Agreed. But advocacy research is lucrative and goes on.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

No objective scientist would do such a research project. Valid research doesn't put the conclusion first. Instead, they would ask how the polar bear population is doing, and whether any changes can be connected to climate change. Which has been done. I'm sure the federal government funded at least some of those studies.

There is the big point. People assume research is done to prove point A. While the scientist may have in mind that polar bears are about to take over the world, that isn't where proper science starts. Industry research may well start there, ie "prove that cigarettes improve health", but real scientists should start with "what is the impact of cigarettes on health".

IF anyone has gotten funding to "prove AGW is caused by burning carbon", a huge mistake was made. If they have gotten funding to research the impact of carbon on climate, that is totally acceptable. It is a huge distinction.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Agreed. But advocacy research is lucrative and goes on.

Yes, it does. And it's funded by industry, not government.

 

[twenty02]

Agreed. But advocacy research is lucrative and goes on.

True...but does govt fund advocacy research?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Yes, it does. And it's funded by industry, not government.

Where would we be today if we went back in time and blocked all government funded research on tobacco? We'd just have industry research assuring us that a pack a day keeps the doctor away. I am sure there are issues with the federal system, no system is perfect. But if we are going to depend totally on industry research we are so screwed. I was an early user of Vioxx, I couldn't stand the stuff and went off of it. But Merck played fast and loose with the system, and frankly the FDA let them. But Merck flooded the market with literature claiming Vioxx was safe though it clearly was not. Source

And we know people with connections to big pharma faked efficacy studies on Vioxx. I am sure there is big money to be made by trying to prove industry correct, at least in terms of future jobs.

Government research should be fair and neutral. In theory, so should industry research but I get that a company would rather shut down research showing their product is dangerous than allowing it to complete. I may not agree with them, but I get why they do it.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Yes, it does. And it's funded by industry, not government.

Sometimes they are the same as with ethanol and some drugs.

Bill Gray and some of his colleagues complained often about not being funded. And don’t forget the Democratic congressional members who took Roger Pelke Jr to task over his funding because he said some of the clean air regulations that were intended to fight AGW wouldn’t. There are other example that I’ve posted about over the years.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I’d be interested in reading up on that. I can’t find any stats. Where are you getting this from?

Here is one report about reproducible experiments. Fraud is a much higher cause than we should expect.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Here is one report about reproducible experiments. Fraud is a much higher cause than we should expect.

Reproducibility is a serious and interesting topic, but it has nothing to do with your claim re: fraudulent grant proposals.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Reproducibility is a serious and interesting topic, but it has nothing to do with your claim re: fraudulent grant proposals.

Did you read the link and look at the graphs?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Did you read the link and look at the graphs?

Of course. I was also already well aware of the issue. And that issue is not fraudulent grant-seeking.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Here is one report about reproducible experiments. Fraud is a much higher cause than we should expect.

Um, yeah. So, what about fraudulent grant seeking? If it’s in that article I’m not the only one who missed it.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Reproducibility is a serious and interesting topic, but it has nothing to do with your claim re: fraudulent grant proposals.

NPR had a story on reproducibilty tonight. A guy setup an experiment with oxytocin as a pain reliever, he came up with different answers than another experiment.

He said in the story that it was not normal to note the gender of the tester and subject pair. It turns out that matters, people report less pain to an experimenter of a different gender.

It goes beyond pain, in lots of areas people react differently based on gender. I could not hear the entire interview, but I think it was heading toward recording/accounting for gender comparisons is becoming a norm.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Um, yeah. So, what about fraudulent grant seeking? If it’s in that article I’m not the only one who missed it.

The way I connect these dots is that research misconduct is grant fraud. Of course if you don’t think there is ever misconduct in government-funded research. . . .

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The way I connect these dots is that research misconduct is grant fraud. Of course if you don’t think there is ever misconduct in government-funded research. . . .

Well, first of all, that's a pretty tenuous dot connection. But most importantly, you are incorrectly conflating the reproducibility problem with misconduct. There are many, many possible reasons why a study isn't reproducible, and only a very small subset of them represent misconduct, as the article you shared clearly explains.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Well, first of all, that's a pretty tenuous dot connection. But most importantly, you are incorrectly conflating the reproducibility problem with misconduct. There are many, many possible reasons why a study isn't reproducible, and only a very small subset of them represent misconduct, as the article you shared clearly explains.

I don’t think it’s a “very small” subset. But there are many reasons as the link states.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I don’t think it’s a “very small” subset. But there are many reasons as the link states.

Well, we don't know how widespread fraud is, of course. But scientists do catch fraud. One of the good things about science is that fraud is hard to get away with. So we have some idea that genuine fraud isn't a huge problem.

Now, there are other problems that fall short of fraud that you may or may not consider misconduct. The classic example, of course, is p-hacking. P-hacking is unfortunately very common, and although it's not really fraudulent, it very likely leads to unjustified conclusions, and those of us who demand more rigorous standards would usually consider bad research, if not a lesser form of misconduct.

That all said, this all stemmed from your claim that fraudulent grant-seeking was on the rise. The dots you are trying to connect simply do not connect. If you have a source for that claim, great, but the one you shared already isn't it.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Well, we don't know how widespread fraud is, of course. But scientists do catch fraud. One of the good things about science is that fraud is hard to get away with. So we have some idea that genuine fraud isn't a huge problem.

Now, there are other problems that fall short of fraud that you may or may not consider misconduct. The classic example, of course, is p-hacking. P-hacking is unfortunately very common, and although it's not really fraudulent, it very likely leads to unjustified conclusions, and those of us who demand more rigorous standards would usually consider bad research, if not a lesser form of misconduct.

That all said, this all stemmed from your claim that fraudulent grant-seeking was on the rise. The dots you are trying to connect simply do not connect. If you have a source for that claim, great, but the one you shared already isn't it.

Good grief. Weak oversight and accountability in government grants has been a problem for years--maybe for as long as there has been government grants. Increasing accountability and oversight isn't happening because there is less grant misconduct. And the total level of government grants is increasing. Even if the ratio of fraud is constant, it increases cuz of the increasing volume. I don't know why you even argue about this point other than you argue about everything. And you do know this is a rabbit hole, don't you?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Good grief. Weak oversight and accountability in government grants has been a problem for years--maybe for as long as there has been government grants. Increasing accountability and oversight isn't happening because there is less grant misconduct. And the total level of government grants is increasing. Even if the ratio of fraud is constant, it increases cuz of the increasing volume. I don't know why you even argue about this point other than you argue about everything. And you do know this is a rabbit hole, don't you?

If it's a rabbit hole, it's yours. You keep making the claim there is some problem with fraud in government grants. You haven't provided any evidence. You simply insist that it is so. All the rest of us did (it wasn't just me) was point out that your one link provided no support for your claim.