Science, Schmience!

[Angus]

The republican war on science, or rather, their war on truth, continues unabated:

http://www.slate.com/id/2141183/?nav=tap3


Essentially, there is a big conference on STD's sponsored by the CDC going on and anyone presenting at the conference has to go through a peer review process before being approved to present. There was to be a symposium on abstinence only programs entitled: "Are Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs a Threat to Public Health?" The guy who came up with the idea had to run it through the peer review process where it was ultimately approved, including his proposed pane of experts.

Suddenly, on the eve of the conference, the symposium's name was changed to: "Public Health Strategies of Abstinence Programs for Youth" and the guy who thought up the idea, put it together and got it approved, was bounced as the moderator and one of the panelists was also axed. Even worse, new panelists were added: Eric Walsh and Patricia Sulak. Who could they be you ask? Surprise, they are staunch ideological advocates of abstinence only programs. Walsh is associated with Loma Linda University, a Seventh Day Adventist institution and Sulak founded an abstinence only program in Texas that is controversial for its stereotypical statements about boys and girls and its negative (and erroneous) info on condoms.

The problem here isn't that there is going to be people who think abstinence only works and people who think they don't at this conference. The problem is that the peer review process was torched in favor of a political standard. As it turns out, the reason for the switch was due to pressure applied by conservative republican congressman Mark Souder of Indiana. He pressed the CDC to make the changes. So the people calling abstinence only programs into question had to undergo peer review so the the science behind their position could be evaluated as reasonable and something more than just chicanery or ginned up bs. The people supporting abstinence only did not have to submit their scientific back up to scrutiny, they got a "get-into-the-conference-free-pass" from their favorite congressman.

Now they will be heard at the conference and right wing nuts will start quoting them along the lines of:

"Dr. Eric Walsh, an expert on abstinence only programs, was recently invited to speak at the prestigious National STD Prevention Conference sponsored by none other than the Center for Disease Control. At this important conference, presenters go through a vigorous peer review process.
At the conference, Walsh addressed the conferees on the subject of Public Health Strategies of Abstinence Only Programs and had this to say about how blindingly wonderful they are and worth every crony bound bundle of dollars the government spends on these near miraculous programs. Blah, blah, blabbity blah."

And that is how the junkiest of junk science gets tossed out into the mainstream. Questionable science by ideologically motivated (and paid) "scientists" uses political muscle to get past the intellectual road blocks that would otherwise filter out quackery.

Two standards. For the academics, thorough peer review followed by publication, followed by even more scrutiny in and review by fellow scientists.

For the scientists, peer review. For the quacks, congressman review.
Intellectual vs. Political.
Truth vs. Ideology

[sukie]

So these controversial guys are added to a panel that is sitting for a portion of a conference. The CDC conference is quite large and if thier "erroneous" views are heard they will be laughed at. Any other controvercial topics being discussed at the conference?

[nehemiah]

this is the culmination of pete's dream. good for him. good for gary hogeboom.

[sukie]

I have topics at conferences that I think are BS all the time... Bored, somehow I make it through.

[35Pete]

Yep. Research that has not withstood the scrutiny of a perr review and is cited as "fact" is indeed junk science. As a scientist I HATE his crap with a passion . Hate it. All it does in the end is undermine our credibility,

The problem today is that peer review is no longer sufficient to guard against junk science. Scientists CAN do crap research, by intent, that can even fool even a peer review journal (selective data harvesting is one technique). EPA Second Hand Smoke Report and much of Global Warming comes to mind.

Angus. Trust me. The left has been doing junk science for decades. Much more so than this nonsense. Where was your outrage then? If junk science really bothers you then yes, this is impt to bring to light. But also shine light on the nonsense that the other side does even more so. Otherwise you are being hypocritical.

[nehemiah]

I have topics at conferences that I think are BS all the time... Bored, somehow I make it through.so it's okay to have religious panels at a scientific conference.

did you have a panel on the power of prayer at your last "dosimetry" conference?

[sukie]

two people a panel does not make.

[anEinherjer]

But two people and an audience of at least one.... yep!

[anEinherjer]

I'm not sure what I hate more:

1. intrusive state nannyism.
2. religious whackjobs of any persuasion.
3. political agendas masquerading as science.

Man, this kind of shit proves one thing to me Angus: Government should not be in the business of sponsoring "research" because it can ALWAYS be corrupted by the politicians with the purse strings. (This also applies to research done by industry, but at least with industry, you can easily determine potential biases based on who paid for the research)

[sukie]

What about religious scientists?

[35Pete]

I'm not sure what I hate more:

1. intrusive state nannyism.
2. religious whackjobs of any persuasion.
3. political agendas masquerading as science.

Man, this kind of shit proves one thing to me Angus: Government should not be in the business of sponsoring "research" because it can ALWAYS be corrupted by the politicians with the purse strings. (This also applies to research done by industry, but at least with industry, you can easily determine potential biases based on who paid for the research)
Yep.

[Angus]

So these controversial guys are added to a panel that is sitting for a portion of a conference. The CDC conference is quite large and if thier "erroneous" views are heard they will be laughed at. Any other controvercial topics being discussed at the conference?

The problem isn't that they were added, it is that they were added without having to go through the same vetting process, peer review, etc, that everyone else had to go through. Had they done so, if their science didn't pass muster, they wouldn't have made it to the conference. They got a free pass. Call it affirmative action for ideologically driven "scientists".

Do you or do you not think that "scientists" should be able to get special treatment to avoid the scrutiny of their peers through the political muscle of a congressman?

[35Pete]

Angus. Do you not admit that the left is engaged in a flood of junk science?

[sukie]

I would have had a bigger problem with the over religious prior title being used and if there was a discussion NOT including abstinence advocates.

[Angus]

Yep. Research that has not withstood the scrutiny of a perr review and is cited as "fact" is indeed junk science. As a scientist I HATE his crap with a passion . Hate it. All it does in the end is undermine our credibility,

The problem today is that peer review is no longer sufficient to guard against junk science. Scientists CAN do crap research, by intent, that can even fool even a peer review journal (selective data harvesting is one technique). EPA Second Hand Smoke Report and much of Global Warming comes to mind.

Angus. Trust me. The left has been doing junk science for decades. Much more so than this nonsense. Where was your outrage then? If junk science really bothers you then yes, this is impt to bring to light. But also shine light on the nonsense that the other side does even more so. Otherwise you are being hypocritical.

There is a difference between peer reveiwed research published in well recognized scientific journals with which you disagree and science that was manufactrued by some "institute" financed by an industry group with a deeply held stake in the outcome of the "research" they sponsor. Reasonable minds can disagree and not every peer reviewed and published study is without error. At least, however, when those kinds of studies are turned loose on the public, they have gone through the process giving everyone all the opportunity in the world to apply a critical eye to the study and findings.

That is all that can be asked. That everyone go through the same process. That is no guarantee against a bad study or even bad science but at the least, peer review and publication puts it all on the wall for everyone to shoot at.

No doubt there have been plenty of bad studies advanced all over the place from both ends of the political spectrum. This, however, is something different. This isn't a bogus study put out there by some right or left hack "institute" that gets passed around the mediasphere. This is an elected representative directly interfering in science, pushing his people in and others out and damning the rules at the same time. It doesn't matter if either of them, Walsh or Selak, is using junk science or perfect science. It wasn't for congressman bluff-n-fuss to decide.

[35Pete]

There is a difference between peer reveiwed research published in well recognized scientific journals with which you disagree and science that was manufactrued by some "institute" financed by an industry group with a deeply held stake in the outcome of the "research" they sponsor. Reasonable minds can disagree and not every peer reviewed and published study is without error. At least, however, when those kinds of studies are turned loose on the public, they have gone through the process giving everyone all the opportunity in the world to apply a critical eye to the study and findings.

That is all that can be asked. That everyone go through the same process. That is no guarantee against a bad study or even bad science but at the least, peer review and publication puts it all on the wall for everyone to shoot at.

No doubt there have been plenty of bad studies advanced all over the place from both ends of the political spectrum. This, however, is something different. This isn't a bogus study put out there by some right or left hack "institute" that gets passed around the mediasphere. This is an elected representative directly interfering in science, pushing his people in and others out and damning the rules at the same time. It doesn't matter if either of them, Walsh or Selak, is using junk science or perfect science. It wasn't for congressman bluff-n-fuss to decide.

I never codoned this activity. If true then it is repulsive but easily recognized. You see, in science "truth" is the absence of "falsity". Peer reviews are a gaultlet that attempt to poke holes in the research. They are not 100% foolproof, especially if the researchers try to "fool them" from the outset.

And "industry" sponsored research is as legit as anything else if it withstands the intense scrutiny of discipline-wide peer review over time.

[Angus]

Angus. Do you not admit that the left is engaged in a flood of junk science?

That is an awfully broad brush and, I would note, a favorite talking point of the right that fits nicely on a campaign button, is easy to remember and has a groovy beat. That kind of thing makes me immediately suspicious, like "activist judges", "tax and spend" or "special rights".

You mentioned global warming and I have to say that I believe that the body of work on that issue is massive and goes back quite a number of years. I would imagine that there has been plenty of discredited studies you would consider as having come from the left. Rather than editorialize with comments like "flood" or "junk", I will simply ask that you provide actual studies that were not only wrong in the end, but were not peer reviewed, having been given some sort of pass on that and from who that pass was provided. That is what I have done here, I presented a specific, concrete example of the politicization of science.

For my part, I have no problem accepting the findings of about 2,500 scientists of one kind or another who, on behalf of the IPCC, produced the IPCC's report, Climate Change 2001: The Third Assessment Report.
The EPA, that is the Bush EPA mind you, states that:

"Human activities are adding greenhouse gases – pollutants that trap in Earth's heat – to the atmosphere at a faster rate than at any time over the past several thousand years.

A warming trend has been recorded since the late 19th century, with the most rapid warming occurring over the past two decades. If emissions of greenhouse gases continue unabated, scientists say we may change global temperature and our planet's climate at an unprecedented rate for our society.

These pages address the most frequently asked questions about the science of global warming and our changing climate. Answers are based on the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and on the most recent peer-reviewed scientific literature."

Thus, even the Bush EPA relies upon the IPCC.

I will not claim any expertise upon which I would be willing to debate the finer points of the IPCC Assessment and if you disagree with their findings, more power to you. Where I would object, is calling the IPCC's work "junk science" let alone a flood of it. Not all science you or I happen to disagree with is therefore "junk". The work is comprehensive and amptly supported. That doesn't mean they are dead on correct but it should, at least, get them past the reflexive and by now, trite, "junk science" accusation.

[sukie]

Left junk.
Global Warming by Humans
Stem Cell Research promises.

[Angus]

I never codoned this activity. If true then it is repulsive but easily recognized. You see, in science "truth" is the absence of "falsity". Peer reviews are a gaultlet that attempt to poke holes in the research. They are not 100% foolproof, especially if the researchers try to "fool them" from the outset.

And "industry" sponsored research is as legit as anything else if it withstands the intense scrutiny of discipline-wide peer review over time.

That is a big "if" and the fact that one might have a huge profit stake in the outcome of the research is a factor to be considered, not the only one but certainly a factor. In law, juries are instructed on how to weigh the credibility of witnesses. They are permitted to consider the witnesses potential stake in the outcome in assessing their credibility. There are situations where literally billions of dollars are at stake for one company or another or perhaps and industry as a whole. That is a powerful motivator to put the proverbial thumb on the scale.

Perhaps if the Gingrichian congress hadn't got rid of the OTA, we might have at least one authoritative source that was unbiased by an interest in the outcome from which to obtain scientific advise on policy. Unfortunately, the OTA was obliterated in 1995, clearing the way for congressmen to get their scientific advise from whatever deep pocket was donating the most to their campaign funds. If you are nostalgic for the good old days of the OTA, like I am, you might like this site:

http://www.wws.princeton.edu/ota/

[Angus]

Left junk.
Global Warming by Humans
Stem Cell Research promises.

This reply reminds me of all the people whose letters to the editor I loved to read back when seat belt laws were first being enacted. "They won't help", "seat belts will kill you", "Its my right". "big brother", blah, blah, blahbbity blah.

You don't hear that much anymore. I don't know if it is because the goons who refused to wear seatbelts have gone silent after so many of them died in survivable accidents or if they just realized that they were wrong and that only a suicidal fool would get in a car without buckling up.

Funny, don't ya think? The double standard I mean. You know, the one where it is okay to stretch the realistic possibilities of an emerging technology if you are hoping to fund a weapons systems like stars wars but condemns with derision and scorn the hope that a new technology might save lives. What would be the difference there that would explain the application of a different standard? Hmmmm.....it is a puzzlement.

[anEinherjer]

Perhaps if the Gingrichian congress hadn't got rid of the OTA, we might have at least one authoritative source that was unbiased by an interest in the outcome from which to obtain scientific advise on policy.

Maybe scientists are fools for pining over a lost government agency that, no matter what it claimed, was still under the influence of individual Congressmen - ie, it got closed down, didn't it?!

Maybe scientists would do better to set up journals and societies that can perform market-driven peer review. If you don't like the peer review services of one particular society, start another!! If yours gets the right answers most frequently, it will become the most popular.

Oh wait. Never mind. Most sciences have exactly such organizations already set up. Take the one I'm most familiar with (which is to say, not familiar at all, but at least I know who they are :D): http://www.aag.org/

**** the Federal gov't and it's ability to force science to go in whichever way the political winds blow. I can't help but notice you completely ignored my last post Angus, hopefully this one makes it through.

[35Pete]

Angus. I assume that you are a lawyer, correct? Tell you what. If you are willing, I will start a thread soon on junk science and we can have a lively discussion on it? Sound good? Tried before but I can't get serious discussion, only emotional outpourings if I "dare" question a sacred cause.

Maybe today. Tomorrow at the latest. And if people can't engage intellectually then we'll just ignore them. Cool?

[anEinherjer]

This reply reminds me of all the people whose letters to the editor I loved to read back when seat belt laws were first being enacted. "They won't help", "seat belts will kill you", "Its my right". "big brother", blah, blah, blahbbity blah.

You don't hear that much anymore. I don't know if it is because the goons who refused to wear seatbelts have gone silent after so many of them died in survivable accidents or if they just realized that they were wrong and that only a suicidal fool would get in a car without buckling up.

Funny, don't ya think? The double standard I mean. You know, the one where it is okay to stretch the realistic possibilities of an emerging technology if you are hoping to fund a weapons systems like stars wars but condemns with derision and scorn the hope that a new technology might save lives. What would be the difference there that would explain the application of a different standard? Hmmmm.....it is a puzzlement.

More statist silliness. You don't hear much because you aren't looking/listening. Good thing we needed Uncle Sam to tell us to buckle our safety belts and threaten us with force if we don't. :rolleyes:

Do you like having your leash tugged, Angus?

[35Pete]

I don't care if not wearing a seatbelt kills you. It is not the right of the state to tell you that you must.

[anEinherjer]

Actually Pete, I don't mind at all if the state tells me to do something as long as I'm free to ignore it. :D

[Angus]

More statist silliness. You don't hear much because you aren't looking/listening. Good thing we needed Uncle Sam to tell us to buckle our safety belts and threaten us with force if we don't. :rolleyes:

Do you like having your leash tugged, Angus?

Wore a seatbelt long before it was a law.

I don't share your view that a simple regulation with regard to the operation of a motor vehicle on the public highways represents the thin, leading edge of tyranny. I see no threat to liberty in a minor, common sense regulation such as seatbelts.

Reminds me of my 6 year old daughter who lectured me on how it was a free country when I explained that she had to look both ways before crossing the street.