[OP-ED] Pushing Back Against Corporate 'Counterfeit Science'

[Bitware]

http://news.yahoo.com/got-science-pushing-back-against-corporate-counterfeit-science-203330743.html

[1714017156]

1714017156

[1714017156]

1714017156

[FirstAscent]

http://news.yahoo.com/got-science-pushing-back-against-corporate-counterfeit-science-203330743.html

Classic examples are the Oregon Petition and all the rot that originates from the Libertarian think tanks such as the Heartland Institute - all funded by the oil companies.

And of course, Frederick Seitz, and his crap, paid for by RJ Reynolds regarding cancer and tobacco, and then conveniently, he signed up with the oil companies to spew his nonsense about denying global warming.

[Bitware]

http://news.yahoo.com/got-science-pushing-back-against-corporate-counterfeit-science-203330743.html

Classic examples are the Oregon Petition and all the rot that originates from the Libertarian think tanks such as the Heartland Institute - all funded by the oil companies.

And of course, Frederick Seitz, and his crap, paid for by RJ Reynolds regarding cancer and tobacco, and then conveniently, he signed up with the oil companies to spew his nonsense about denying global warming.

ad hominem much ?

what's next?

some good ole fashioned emotional and feigned indignation?

I think he denied that humans affect global warming... maybe I am wrong, but you are not important enough for me to spend the time to type it in the google.

[FirstAscent]

http://news.yahoo.com/got-science-pushing-back-against-corporate-counterfeit-science-203330743.html

Classic examples are the Oregon Petition and all the rot that originates from the Libertarian think tanks such as the Heartland Institute - all funded by the oil companies.

And of course, Frederick Seitz, and his crap, paid for by RJ Reynolds regarding cancer and tobacco, and then conveniently, he signed up with the oil companies to spew his nonsense about denying global warming.

ad hominem much ?

Certainly not in the post you're referring to. Care to point it out?

I think he denied that humans affect global warming... maybe I am wrong, but you are not important enough for me to spend the time to type it in the google.

Please, make some sense.

[Spendulus]

http://news.yahoo.com/got-science-pushing-back-against-corporate-counterfeit-science-203330743.html

Classic examples are the Oregon Petition and all the rot that originates from the Libertarian think tanks such as the Heartland Institute - all funded by the oil companies.

And of course, Frederick Seitz, and his crap, paid for by RJ Reynolds regarding cancer and tobacco, and then conveniently, he signed up with the oil companies to spew his nonsense about denying global warming.

ad hominem much ?

what's next?

some good ole fashioned emotional and feigned indignation?

I think he denied that humans affect global warming... maybe I am wrong, but you are not important enough for me to spend the time to type it in the google.

I think he's likely ranting about Singer, who argues in a book about an approximate 1500 year climate cycle.  Singer and some others of his style argued not against humans affecting the climate, but for a lower 'climate sensitivity' than the hyper alarmists claimed was the case.  Seems they are being vindicated as the Fifth report becomes available.

[TECSHARE]

I think a good application of Bitcoin to defeat "counterfeit science", would be the crowd funding of studies designed to bring actual cures to the forefront, or even inexpensive natural treatments. Users who donated could vote on which application the funds would be applied to, and scientists and doctors could get independent funding from a group that is not themselves dependent on the status quo of academic, corporate, and medical systems.

For example we could start "Cancer Coin" and people could mine it at home and check a box to donate all mined funds to cancer cures which are voted on by the majority, or they can save it and donate it to any group they like. Currently almost all peer reviewed medical studies rely on funding from pharmaceutical companies which not only want to create positive results to sell their drugs, but want to continue a system of "treatments" over any kind of cure. In the US medical system, cure is a bad word. Independent funding could help combat this.

[Spendulus]

I think a good application of Bitcoin to defeat "counterfeit science", would be the crowd funding of studies designed to bring actual cures to the forefront, or even inexpensive natural treatments. Users who donated could vote on which application the funds would be applied to, and scientists and doctors could get independent funding from a group that is not themselves dependent on the status quo of academic, corporate, and medical systems.

For example we could start "Cancer Coin" and people could mine it at home and check a box to donate all mined funds to cancer cures which are voted on by the majority, or they can save it and donate it to any group they like. Currently almost all peer reviewed medical studies rely on funding from pharmaceutical companies which not only want to create positive results to sell their drugs, but want to continue a system of "treatments" over any kind of cure. In the US medical system, cure is a bad word. Independent funding could help combat this.

There might be something there, but I'm somewhat at a loss as to how average people would make intelligent decisions about something that's pretty darn technical.

Might be a way in the future to put then-useless bitcoin miners to work doing something like protein folding to figure out some antibody antigen/enzyme functions related to cancer.

[TECSHARE]

I think a good application of Bitcoin to defeat "counterfeit science", would be the crowd funding of studies designed to bring actual cures to the forefront, or even inexpensive natural treatments. Users who donated could vote on which application the funds would be applied to, and scientists and doctors could get independent funding from a group that is not themselves dependent on the status quo of academic, corporate, and medical systems.

For example we could start "Cancer Coin" and people could mine it at home and check a box to donate all mined funds to cancer cures which are voted on by the majority, or they can save it and donate it to any group they like. Currently almost all peer reviewed medical studies rely on funding from pharmaceutical companies which not only want to create positive results to sell their drugs, but want to continue a system of "treatments" over any kind of cure. In the US medical system, cure is a bad word. Independent funding could help combat this.

There might be something there, but I'm somewhat at a loss as to how average people would make intelligent decisions about something that's pretty darn technical.

Might be a way in the future to put then-useless bitcoin miners to work doing something like protein folding to figure out some antibody antigen/enzyme functions related to cancer.

Simple. Stop funding groups that don't produce results. You will know them by the trail they leave.

[niko]

http://news.yahoo.com/got-science-pushing-back-against-corporate-counterfeit-science-203330743.html

What is the alternative? Corporate science at least is under some sort of public, regulatory, and corporate scrutiny. Academic research, on the other hand, has been free to rot without any true oversight or audits. Over the past few decades it has mutated into the ultimate scam, source of irreproducible bullshit, and circle-jerk of awards and conferences. Most of modern-day graduate students and other researchers in sciences simply push random buttons and cluelessly repeat sloppy, uncontrolled experiments (disguised as "working hard") until one desired outcome appears - then sweep everything else under the rug, and struggle to sell the cherry-picked story as "science." Publish or perish.
There are rare exceptions, of course - scientists who design their experiments beforehand, and honestly report the outcomes. But there are exceptions among the corporate scientists, too.

The inflamatory article you linked to implies a dichotomy which is false; the real question here is not corporate-vs-someotherkindofscience, but good vs. bad science. Those among us directly involved, today, in scientific research will understand what I am pointing to.

[Spendulus]

http://news.yahoo.com/got-science-pushing-back-against-corporate-counterfeit-science-203330743.html

What is the alternative? Corporate science at least is under some sort of public and corporate scrutiny. Academic research, on the other hand, has been free to rot without any true oversight or audits. Over the past few decades it has mutated into the ultimate scam, source of irreproducible bullshit, and circle-jerk of awards and conferences. Most of modern-day graduate students and other researchers in sciences simply push random buttons and cluelessly repeat sloppy, uncontrolled experiments (disguised as "working hard") until one desired outcome appears - then sweep everything else under the rug, and struggle to sell the cherry-picked story as "science." Publish or perish.
There are rare exceptions, of course - scientists who design their experiments beforehand, and honestly report the outcomes. But there are exceptions among the corporate scientist, too.

The inflamatory article you linked to implies a dichotomy which is false; the real question here is not corporate-vs-someotherkindofscience, but good vs. bad science. Those among us directly involved, today, in scientific research will understand what I am pointing to.

But what about the poor polar bears?

LOL...

[TECSHARE]

IMO this thread merits some more discussion. It is an important topic that effects all of us.

[Spendulus]

IMO this thread merits some more discussion. It is an important topic that effects all of us.

There is a theory that in large part the only valid science will be that in private industry.  Taken on face value this is a bit of a stretch, let's separate "basic and applied" science, and consider it with reference to applied science.

The concept is that government funded science can and will be influenced by popular prejudice, klepto and crony capitalism, and various mythologies present in both the voting population, the media and the elected representatives.  And that science done by industry will more likely achieve useful and beneficial results - because those are what yield profits.  Not in all cases and not in the short term, but over the medium and longer terms.