Re: "Political Correctness" drives scientific errors

From: tadchem (tadchemNOSPAM_at_comcast.net)
Date: 03/19/05 

Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:55:24 -0500

"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:3a1784F4khgk9U1@individual.net...
>
> "tadchem" <thomas.davidson@dla.mil> wrote in message
> news:1111172819.139628.284530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > This is the same kind of thinking
>
> What "same kind of thinking" ?

Ooops! It seems you have snipped the sentence that makes the entire point of
my post:
"If you can ring enough alarms loud enough the grant money will flow."

*That* kind of thinking is what I was referring to.

> >that has driven bad science in the
> > name of climate research, environmentalism, and some suspicious
> medical
> > studies...
>
> Just because you don't like the results of research don't mean its 'bad
> science'.

My other (implied) point was the converse of this. Popular acclaim does not
validate bad science. Whether or not science is good is not dependent upon
ex post facto judgements. The flaws are inherent even before the original
MS is prepared. Often there are hidden assumptions that have not been
questioned, and perhaps should be.

My personal opinon of published results is not even mentioned here, so
please do not leap to conclusions - you are more likely than not to be in
error.

For example, the work of the confessed charlatain in this case was in many
cases directed at "obesity." There still is no clear consensus among
researchers about what *constitutes* obesity. The criteria for application
of the label to a specific subject are fluid. It currently appears that
'obesity' is being being continually redefined to include an ever-larger
portion of the population, guaranteeing an apparent 'epidemic' as the
numbers of people included grow.

Body weight is a measurable parameter, just like blood pressure of blood
sugar. It is something that physicians can easily 'get a handle on.'
Higher than average body weight is not necessarily a disorder of itself - it
is a *symptom.* There can be many different conditions that can result in
higher than average body weight, including poor diet, metabolic disorders,
and even parasitic infections. Virtually no research is being reported on
means to discriminate the various *causes* of obesity.

There's more money to be made from treatments than from cures, anyway.

> Get a copy of the 5th March New Scientist

Not the most reliable of sources. It rates about even with Scientific
American and TV Guide for reliability in reporting.

> and read the Essay on Michael
> Crichton's State of Fear.

The opinions of a professional crafter of fiction are to be given more
weight than a critical analysis of the research reports because...?

> As if money from oil and coal companies is going to pay for unbiased
> research.

The money from sources with commercial agendas is no better or worse than
money from sources with political agendas. The last US election
demonstrated that even professional pollsters were not above representing
their results in a manner that was more pleasant to the $pon$or$ of the
polls.

Research costs money, and can *only* be paid for by sources with large
amounts of discretionary funds. Researchers that fail to please their
patrons don't continue to get money.

I am not worried about biased research so much as I am worried about
fraudulent research.

Biased work, as long as it is competent and honest, is still replicable and
has its own value. Further investigations will reveal both the bias and the
value. The replications will strengthen the (true) conclusions of even
biased work.

Work that is fraudulent or incompetent is not replicable. It produces
conclusions that are contradicted by further work. The net result is that a
lot of money gets wasted not only in the initial bad science, but also on
the efforts to replicate the results - efforts that would never have been
made if the original researchers had been competent and honest, and if the
original reviewers of the work had been thoroughly critical in spite of any
pressures applied by popular interests.

This wastes resources that could be put to more productive use. Diversion
of resources from productive lines of investigation such as adult stem cell
research towards something else, simply because it has more press appeal,
does a disservice to all.

This is why the scientific method includes a requirement for replicability
of results.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA