Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
SOPA creator’s latest bill proposes stripping peer-review from science funding
04-30-2013, 07:59 AM, (This post was last modified: 04-30-2013, 08:01 AM by thokling.)
#1
SOPA creator’s latest bill proposes stripping peer-review from science funding
SOPA creator’s latest bill proposes stripping peer-review from science funding
By Stephen C. Webster
Monday, April 29, 2013 10:10 EDT


A draft bill obtained by Science Magazine‘s blog ScienceInsider, sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), would strip the peer-review requirement from the National Science Foundation (NSF) grant process, inserting a new set of funding criteria that is significantly less transparent and not inclusive of the opinions of independent experts.

Smith, sponsor of the highly controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) that threatened to fundamentally change how the Internet works, has long been a critic of the NSF grant process. In furtherance of those views, Smith recently conducted a hearing supposedly meant to consider how the grant approval process might be improved, an early indication that such a bill was forthcoming.

Another indication came in February, when Smith published an editorial in Roll Call describing how his vision of science funding is based not upon the impacts new research may have on the scientific community, but whether that research will “create jobs.” He went on to boast about how much of the House science committee’s $39 billion in agency budgets gets dumped onto nuclear, fracking and “clean coal” projects.

Smith’s “High Quality Research Act,” embedded below, scraps the NSF’s current peer-review process, which solicits the opinions of independent experts as to the “intellectual merit” and “broader impacts” of proposed research. In its stead, a new set of non-scientific standards for science funding are proposed.

Those proposed standards are three-fold, requiring the NSF’s director to certify that all accepted research proposals are: “in the interests of the United States to advance the national health, prosperity, or welfare, and to secure the national defense by promoting the progress of science; the finest quality, is groundbreaking, and answers questions or solves problems that are of utmost importance to society at large; and not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies.” The draft bill also requires that the NSF director report to Congress how the same criteria can be applied to “other Federal science agencies.”

In addition to the problem of stripping out a transparent, peer-review process, the new standards also discount the importance of research duplication, an important part of the scientific process. Without overlapping research, scientists cannot independently verify experimental results from other laboratories.

Science Magazine goes on to note that Smith also recently sent a letter to NSF director Cora Marrett requesting more information on five specific grants — an action without precedent for a chairman of the House Science committee, particularly one who is personally lacking in scientific expertise. That letter reportedly drew a rebuke by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), who wrote to Smith warning that interfering with the peer-review process threatens to “undo everything that has enabled NSF to contribute so profoundly to our national health, prosperity, and welfare.”

The NSF’s fiscal year 2014 budget proposal comes a grand total of $7.6 billion (PDF) — or about 0.2 percent of the $3.77 trillion federal budget — including $223 million for science, engineering and sustainability investment and education. Some of the 2012 funding highlights cited by the agency include helping address the nation’s shortage of physics teachers and fostering the development of an “artificial leaf” that converts sunlight into portable hydrogen fuel.

The High Quality Research Act of 2013

(Edit: Whups, posted in the wrong area - could this be moved to Science, Technology & Discoveries please?)
Truth appears in many forms. Find those that resonate with you.

- "If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise, we do not believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky
- "Humans are not a rational animal, but a rationalizing one." - Leon Festinger

http://avaaz.org - The World In Action
Reply
04-30-2013, 08:28 AM,
#2
RE: SOPA creator’s latest bill proposes stripping peer-review from science funding
Score one more for the railroaded scientific objectivist approach as opposed to the scientific method. This allows "science" to be pushed through theory to childrens' textbooks.

My hope is that this line of ill logic will discredit itself and perhaps even get people to start doing some more high level scientific investigation from a grassroots level.
There are no others, there is only us.
http://FastTadpole.com/
Reply
04-30-2013, 02:53 PM, (This post was last modified: 04-30-2013, 02:56 PM by Watchdog.)
#3
RE: SOPA creator’s latest bill proposes stripping peer-review from science funding
Peer-review in science is like cult members agreeing together for the continuation of their order and rituals.

Both peer-review for funding and publications are perverted and a gatekeep.

In my former life I published in scientific journals, but would not recommend anyone read my papers. It's bullsh*t that was needed at the time to continue working in the F_A CULT_Y.

In fact, in the last stretch of my pseudo scientific career, I submitted a paper to the Journal of Climate Change and when the peer-review came in I was surprised to see than none had confronted me on the bullsh*t results from my "research"... I suspect that it's because as climate change researchers themselves they know that their research is also bullsh*t. In the end I retracted my paper, quit my job, and never practiced science again.

It's facinating to see how scientists believe they are discovering the hidden laws of nature, when in fact they are creating and fabricating a belief system, that in the end almost always turns out to be wrong. If at least the mental masturbation would stay in their ivory towers it could be somewhat acceptable (still a waste of money and time IMO, but useful for the government who claims income tax from the slave worker, and who also spend money buying crap), but unfortunately their versions of reality are now being used by politiciens and corporations to brainwash people for culture creation, power, and money.

Proper scientific enquiry would be useful, but we've seriously derailed the process.

Good luck to all them scientists who beLIEve they are contibuting to the well-being and knowledge base of humanity. Just like you can't convince a priest of the non existance of God, you can't convince a scientist of his inability to understand God's creation.
Paix, Amour et Lumiere
Reply
05-01-2013, 04:54 AM,
#4
RE: SOPA creator’s latest bill proposes stripping peer-review from science funding
(04-30-2013, 02:53 PM)Watchdog Wrote: Peer-review in science is like cult members agreeing together for the continuation of their order and rituals.

Both peer-review for funding and publications are perverted and a gatekeep.

In my former life I published in scientific journals, but would not recommend anyone read my papers. It's bullsh*t that was needed at the time to continue working in the F_A CULT_Y.

In fact, in the last stretch of my pseudo scientific career, I submitted a paper to the Journal of Climate Change and when the peer-review came in I was surprised to see than none had confronted me on the bullsh*t results from my "research"... I suspect that it's because as climate change researchers themselves they know that their research is also bullsh*t. In the end I retracted my paper, quit my job, and never practiced science again.

It's facinating to see how scientists believe they are discovering the hidden laws of nature, when in fact they are creating and fabricating a belief system, that in the end almost always turns out to be wrong. If at least the mental masturbation would stay in their ivory towers it could be somewhat acceptable (still a waste of money and time IMO, but useful for the government who claims income tax from the slave worker, and who also spend money buying crap), but unfortunately their versions of reality are now being used by politiciens and corporations to brainwash people for culture creation, power, and money.

Proper scientific enquiry would be useful, but we've seriously derailed the process.

Good luck to all them scientists who beLIEve they are contibuting to the well-being and knowledge base of humanity. Just like you can't convince a priest of the non existance of God, you can't convince a scientist of his inability to understand God's creation.

I'd like to see some of your work and what bullshit you inserted into it. Someone needs to show how that system is manipulated.
Reply
05-01-2013, 05:28 AM,
#5
RE: SOPA creator’s latest bill proposes stripping peer-review from science funding
(05-01-2013, 04:54 AM)psilocybin Wrote: [I'd like to see some of your work and what bullshit you inserted into it. Someone needs to show how that system is manipulated.

Well... Really it has to do with computer simulation modelling. The paper just relates to others using the same programs, and me inventing sub-routines to modify the outcome (using published mathematical equations that scientists believe represent biological phenom).

I used modelling output to feed other models, created new routines, to output simulation data. GARBAGE IN; GARBAGE OUT!!!

Once in a talk I gave in a conference I showed a picture of a time machine. Then I told the crowd that I needed this machine to go in the future to validate the results of computer simulations. This is the only true method to verify our predictions. But, needless to say other scientists did not find my concept very funny.

They beLIEve that mumbo jumbo statistical devices can replace a time machine, and give us "confidence" on the inference level of computer data.

Thing is that when you are "under the influence of science" you actually beLIEve that "confidence" is purely a mathematical concept.

Thing is, the more you use complex statistical procedures, the more people need to beLIEve you, because they can't understand the magicK.

I shall alway rember a conversation I had with a high level industry manager, that gave half (1/2) million to a scientific research institute, in order to prove a point to the government so they could change legislation. AND IT WORKED !!!

Worker bees will do anything for honey...
Paix, Amour et Lumiere
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Maine governor signs GMO food labeling bill bristopen 0 456 01-14-2014, 06:42 PM
Last Post: bristopen
  Britain's £85 billion bill for climate policies stiffy 2 865 12-03-2013, 10:27 PM
Last Post: CharliePrime
  CIA Funding Climate Manipulation Study mexika 0 647 07-17-2013, 11:06 PM
Last Post: mexika
  Student science experiment plants won't grow near Wi-Fi router drummer 2 953 06-01-2013, 12:40 AM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  Energy's Latest Battleground: Fracking For Uranium Frank2 0 566 02-19-2013, 07:37 PM
Last Post: Frank2
  Bill Gates backs climate scientists lobbying for large-scale geoengineering TriWooOx 1 936 08-05-2012, 12:11 AM
Last Post: yeti
  Bill Gates, Monsanto, and eugenics: mexika 0 601 02-29-2012, 10:27 PM
Last Post: mexika
  Junk science alert: researchers declare alternative therapies dangerous to children h3rm35 0 623 12-29-2010, 02:16 AM
Last Post: h3rm35
  House Passes HR 2749! FOOD FASCISM Bill to Senate Next hilly7 1 1,048 09-15-2010, 10:02 AM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  Bill Gates: End-of-Life Care vs. Saving Teachers' Jobs drummer 0 941 09-14-2010, 08:46 AM
Last Post: drummer

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)