10,000 scientists protest political interference in the scientific process

Hutch · Dec 14, 2006

HERESY said:

No they did not - "According to the American Union of Concerned Scientists, data is being misrepresented for political reasons". The data is sound. The interpretation is fallacious.

HERESY said:

I do know how to read Heresy. I used global climate change as an example because it is the scientific field that I am most familiar with. I am not doubting that bad science is being performed in the fields of international peace and security, and water resources. Surely you can extrapolate from my argument and apply the same concepts to both of these fields, that's what examples are for.

HERESY said:

See above.

HERESY said:

It is a bit of a leap in the dark. The article criticises the government for interfering in the scientific process by promotinc bad science and misrepresenting data for political purposes. A true scientific mind is immune to such a manipulation of data - go to the source and get the information straight from the horses mouth. When data is fabricated... well, here's an example of what you mean - it was discovered a while back that Hwang Woo-suk, a South-Korean scientist, had fabricated his results:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4554422.stm

Scientists take this shit very seriously Heresy. We don't accept what people say just because they said it.

HERESY said:

Again, I never once stated that global warming was the only scientific field that the government has interefered with - it was merely used as an example. You might not care about the ice melting and flooding a few homes, but you're rather strange. The POINT, Heresy, is that these scientific findings conflict with what Bush has previously stated and he doesn't want to look like a liar just before the elections. As long as there wasn't any definitive evidence proving that humans were involved in global temperature increases, Bush could play the uncertainty card and get away with environmental murder. Suddenly, some more damning evidence is presented which conflicts with what he told the American people - what do you think his response was? He suppressed the data until it no longer mattered. A prime example of politicians interfering with the scientific process.

HERESY · Dec 14, 2006

No, I guess you didn't read the article as you should have. Pay attention to the words in bold.

Hutch, if they are being asked to change data, and they go along with it, that means the stats and data ARE compromised. If the data has been CHANGED (as implied in the article) how then is the data sound?

See above.

And after I pull from your argument guess what the results will be Hutch? Unlike these scientists I won't have tainted results. So you're most familiar with global warming, thats all good, but I think you focused on that because a portion of the article focused on it.

SEE ABOVE.

No it isn't Hutch. This is not a leap in the dark. You and I both know science is used everyday correct? You and I both know science is also used in the criminal justice field correct? Hutch, do you know what happens to DNA evidence that has not gone through the proper chain of command? It is questionable. Do you know what happens to that DNA evidence at a supression of evidence hearing? It gets TOSSED OUT. Hutch, the article critcizes the government for interferring AND for having results CHANGED. You can try to wordsmith it all you want, but misrepresentation comes AFTER the fact. The data is CHANGED first THEN misrepresented. Misrepresentation comes when it is presented to the public as factual/truthful/accurate results.

Of course they take it serious...thats why 10,000 scientist want the government to back off and not force them to taint the results. You showing me what a south korean did means nothing, Hutch. Why? Because we have 10,000 claiming science has been compromised.

Again, from what I read it seemed as if you were implying that was the only problem. No harm done.

Thanks for the compliment.

The POINT, Hutch, is that these scientific findings have been altered, and while you may think it has something to do with Bush (which may have validity) have you factored in funding and how these people may have been given more funding/grants?

Hutch, there has been MUCH damn evidence that conflicts with what George said. Do you see weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Weren't the troops supposed to be back by now? Hutch, the data was not just suppressed it was flat out CHANGED--it is BAD SCIENCE.

Hutch · Dec 14, 2006

HERESY said:

Again you question my ability to read. The statement that these scientists signed nowhere mentions the word 'interference' in the form of manipulation of data. Is the author of this article at fault? Maybe, but the statement clearly defines the political interference as "placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the government’s own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice". In this way, they can suppress data which does not validate their cause and highlight data which does.

HERESY said:

There are some bad scientists out there who are willing to 'sell their soul' to make a third party happy, but they are few. You've often criticized me for placing the blame of religious hate crimes on the whole religion whilst it was only a few fanatics who perpetrated the crime. There are fuckwits everywhere, and although some people don't follow the correct scientific method, that doesn't destroy the validity of the method.

HERESY said:

Your thoughts are incorrect.

HERESY said:

Don't patronize me, just make your statement and get on with it. I know that DNA evidence is thrown out if there is a potential for it to have been tampered with. Even if it has gone through the 'proper' chain of command, who is to say that it hasn't been tampered with anyway? There are a few things you should realise here - (1) the DNA provides a single piece of evidence and it's validity cannot be confirmed nor refuted. This is unlike nearly all science; (2) the data gathered from the DNA tests are CORRECT. The pattern of bands produced by DNA analysis always corresponds to the DNA that has been tested, regardless of whether the DNA belongs to the perpetrator or an innocent bystander. It is a manipulation of the data (by way of changing the original DNA) which is at fault, not the data itself.

Again, the statement doesn't mention the word change as it relates to the alteration of data. It actually mentions the word change five times, four are in relation to global climate change (wow, fancy that - it is a big issue to these scientists!).

HERESY said:

Taint the results? Suppression my good man, not alteration. Politicians have often requested that scientific bodies, such as the EPA or NASA, (a) remove specific parts of their data from reports because they don't support current government policies, (b) suppress the publication of such reports and (c) emphasize the main points which support government policy whilst downplaying negative conclusions. This leads to a misinterpretation of the data in a holistic perspective and skews the medias portrayal of the science and the publics subsequent understanding. Dig deep and you'll find REAL data.

HERESY said:

The conclusions drawn from these scientific findings have been altered. It definitely has something to do with Bush (the statement actually mentions his name and blames him for the current situation). I have also factored in funding, and this is the one area which can potentially skew results. However, studies that are funded by governmental bodies with an aim to 'prove' that global temperature change is not caused by human actions (for example) don't follow the correct scientific method, the results are biast, and every good scientist laughs at their poor attempt at misleading the field, pointing to REAL data which discredits their findings.

HERESY said:

I don't see weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. George Bush couldn't suppress these findings because they didn't revolve around findings but rather the lack thereof. There were no weapons and they were never going to find any weapons regardless of his actions or words - he knew that it would bite him in the arse when he made the claim but it was necessary in order to invade Iraq. With regards to the troops, yes - they were originally supposed to be back by now. However, only recently is it severely affecting his political position - and why should he care? He got his second term.

Hutch · Dec 14, 2006

By the way, here's a link to the actual statement:

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/scientists-signon-statement.html

JLMACN · Dec 15, 2006

HERESY said:

i knew you were prophetic...

5000

HERESY · Dec 15, 2006

The article also doesn't mention LEAD POISONING, but does failure to mention it detract from the articles validity? So, let me get this straight, you are saying because it didn't mention it, it never happened. We'll find out the true results next week Hutch. :siccness:

We WILL find out next week.

Would these people have the ability to change data or persuade others to change data?

No data :dead:

So I guess censorship has nothing to do with EDITING, CHANGING or REMOVING information....

Hutch, do you realize you can SUPPRESS data by CHANGING it?

How do you know this, Hutch?

You've also tried to rationalize your behavior. However, did I say these people were fanataics, or did I often say they weren't members or shouldn't be classified as members of the religion in question? Again, if the data has been CHANGED (as implied in the article) how then is the data sound?

So are some of the reports dealing with issues from global warming to agriculture.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/patronize
I'm glad you understand #3

So, knowing people with "motives" have been placed in positions where they DO have access to data, or influence over those who do, why is it a stretch to believe data has been tampered with?

Yet it is admissible in court and often used to prove guilt or innocence. If validity cannot be confirmed or refuted you wouldn't have public interest law groups dedicated to freeing people who have been wrongly incarcerated because of faulty DNA evidence/testing/result reading.

So, what you're telling me is uninterpretable and inconclusive results do not exist?

See above, and if the results have been CHANGED the data IS wrong.

Hutch, here is an excerpt from the article:

That excerpt implies the data was ALTERED. However, we WILL find out if the data was altered next week.

Again, we will find out next week. But look at how you contradict yourself. Compare what you just said to this:

Pay attention to the word in bold Hutch. If you REMOVE something you HAVE altered it. You have altered it from its original form, and that alteration has changed the meaning and results. Due to parts being altered, the results of the original work ARE suppressed.

Which is why we will have the correct answers next week.

It was presented (tainted evidence/claims), the public fell for it, and now Iraq is in shambles. Apply the same to science and you'll get the same results.

Hutch · Dec 16, 2006

HERESY said:

Where the hell did you pull that from? Yeah, I clearly said that whatever they didn't mention didn't happen. The cold war, the crusades, the first trans-pacific flight, the invention of the computer - none of it happened. Wow, you got me there.

HERESY said:

Why next week?

HERESY said:

These people would have the ability to 'change' data, however scientists would see this as being fraudulent. They may be able to convince the media and the majority of the public that the data is sound, but objective scientists, who have a giant pool of data from which to assess this new data, would see the flaws and pick them out. Even if the field was new, the data, whether it supported the governments policies or not, would be scrutinized even more than if it were in a highly developed field of science and independent scientists would be attempting to replicate their experiments.

HERESY said:

Well, those exact words were written in the statement which the 10,000 scientists signed. Are you suggesting that these scientists were willing to sign the statement without knowing the validity of the statement? Might as well just throw it in the bin then.

HERESY said:

Removing the information, yes. Editing and changing the information, no. As a starting point to this argument, you should attempt to understand what censorship means - consult your nearest dictionary please. Several people edit scientific documents who are not qualified to do the editing. They cannot explicitly change the data. They can, however, alter the emphasis placed on specific results, such that "although this data suggests that X is happening, several experiments have suggested that X may not be a true representation of what is really happening and, for socio-economic reasons, it would be best if we avoid making such changes before a proper consensus is met". See the difference?

HERESY said:

People can only suppress data by failing to report it. Changing data is not the suppression of data, although it might mask the initial suppression of data by presenting faulty data in it's place. Changing data and suppressing data are not the same thing, and I doubt anyone could cogently argue otherwise.

HERESY said:

Which part - how do I know that there are scientists that are willing to sell their soul, or how do I know that they are few? I assume that you are referring to the latter part of the statement. The scientific method combines scientists into what is essentially a 'knowledge organism'. People don't just perform experiments and then present the data, safe in the knowledge that it will be accepted as gospel (I love that analogy). Every time a scientist produces a new publication, or makes a claim to have 'discovered' something or the cause of something, other scientists immediately take note. If they cannot show that they have undertaken the correct scientific process, and if the experiments cannot be replicated by several independent laboratories, then the results (data) are questionable at best. Either (a) these scientists didn't follow the correct scientific method and their results are false because they didn't take into account sufficient variables, etc., in which case the science isn't taken seriously, or (b) these scientists DO follow the correct scientific method and their data has been shown (by these several independent studies) to be false. They are often shown as being either fraudulent, or in the least, not very reliable, and again no-one takes their science seriously. Few scientists are willing to expose themselves to such ridicule.

HERESY said:

I wish you would stop suggesting that the article implicitly suggests that the data has been changed. If that is what you are resting your argument on, then the only defense you have is that the article was poorly written. I'm not debating the validity of the article in question, I am debating the validity of the bigger picture - the statement signed by these 10,000 scientists. Who are the people censoring this data? Big-wig Washington cats who know nothing of science (i.e. they are not members of the scientific community and shouldn't be classified as members of the 'community' in question).

HERESY said:

Indeed. They didn't follow the scientific method and their results were skewed. The Bush government is using these bad scientific studies as scapegoats for their dodgey policies. Again though, if the data is not sound, then scientists will realise this (even if the public don't). If the data is 'sound', then there will be obvious flaws in their scientific method, and again, scientists will realise this.

HERESY said:

Don't fuck with a scientists results, lesson number one. If the data from a scientists is tampered with, then every other scientist will recognise that his results are faulty and biast and he will be ridiculed. Every result that he had attained in the past will come under scrutiny and he will not be able to get a job anywhere - his science career is over. The powers that be know not to fuck with the scientists data - they don't need to. Simply extend their propaganda and present it in a different light, or, if the data is that negative, suppress it. There's no need to change it.

HERESY said:

A contradiction in terms. It is for exactly this reason that these groups exist. If the data could be either confirmed or refuted, then we wouldn't need public interest law groups. If we thought that a man was innocent, then we could simply perform another few tests which refute the first result. These tests would show that the initial results were faulty, and he would be a free man - i.e. it is because these results cannot be confirmed or refuted that the public interest law groups exist.

HERESY said:

Was that implicit in my previous statement? You're good at wrongly reading into things, that's a skill few people possess. I performed a restriction digest on some DNA yesterday. The picture I received was strange. In other words, they were inconclusive results. Uninterpretable data also exists, only because the field is too young to draw any definitive conclusions. I would be the last one on these boards to suggest otherwise.

HERESY said:

Yes. But the DATA HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED. The DNA sample used to perform the tests have been changed, the data that has been gathered is specific for that sample. The interpretation and the use of that data (using this data to convict a man who didn't provide the sample that was tested) is to blame. The data is the same, the application of the data (the resultant outcome) is at fault.

HERESY said:

Is this article your new bible Heresy? I could not give a damn what this article says - it was written directly about the statment which the scientist had signed. No where in that statement does it claim that scientists have been asked to change data. Drop this whole 'the article' position and read the ACTUAL statement to which this dodgey article refers.

HERESY said:

See above. What is this 'we'll find out next week' talk in relation to?

HERESY said:

There is no contradiction there. I stated that they suppress data, not change it. If you didn't already know, suppression of data can and does mean the removal of data from the original reports. If you remove data, you have not altered that data. You may have altered the conclusion drawn from the remaining data, but the data is still SOUND. Due to parts being REMOVED, the results of the original work ARE suppressed. When the EPA/NASA etc publish reports, these biast advisory committees are presented with a whole list of data and the scientists conclusions/recommendations. They often suppress some of this data and alter the conclusions/recommendations. There is no alteration of data here - suppression and alterations of conclusions. The conclusions themselves are not data, it is the interpretation of the data. That is why it is the interpretation of the data, not the data itself, which is wrong.

HERESY said:

There was no data suggesting that weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq. The US simply stated that they 'had evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction' without contemplating revealing that evidence. Why? Because their data suggested that there were no weapons. They concocted claims which supported their cause, overemphasised speculation and succeeded in convincing the American people that this speculation was evidence (how fucking dumb are they) and *bang*, the start of the war. IF I apply the same to science, I do get the same - a handful of politicians with hidden agendas presenting a biast, one sided view of research, presenting false conclusions without any evidence, AND the stupid public believing what they are told, then yes, it is the same. Don't blame the scientists - blame the biast fuckwits who falsely interpret and present the data and the stupid fucking public for believing them.

HERESY · Dec 16, 2006

The link you provided mentions lead poisoning, Hutch. You are saying the statement didn't mention interference, but I am telling you because change wasn't mentioned in your link that does not remove the possibility that it did not happen. The article clearly mentions the compromise of data and how it could be changed, yet your refutation of this is one of, "oh the article must be wrong", and "oh since it wasn't in the documents they signed it never happened."

All a figment of someones imagination.

Thats for me to know and for you to read.

Which is why 10,000 scientists are protesting. Again, someone from that article was quoted as saying "bad science". Hutch, in your opinion, what is bad science?

But what are the chances of the public getting the REAL info? If the scientists are blocked from releasing the info it doesn't matter, and even if the public does get the info, it could be too late.

I agree, but who is going to listen to the independent scientist? Is the guy guzzling a six pack and snacking on ships going to do it? Is the girl flipping burgers going to do it? Is the woman at the PTA meeting lusting over the school janitor going to do it? What I am telling you is once teh real results are released (if they are ever released) the public will most likely have its mind made up and will be comfortable in their position. You yourself ADMIT that these people would have the ability to change data, and since they are already doing something unethical, why would you believe that they would NOT change data? Hutch, seriously, who are we talking about here? The united states government.

No, I'm not talking about the statement. When I said no data, I was referring to what often happens when groups and research has been disbanded. The data is often tossed out unless someone continues the research on some other terms. And I am NOT saying this happens all the time.

Again, we are talking about the united states government. Hutch, what you are telling me is people who have access to the data can't change it? LMAO! YOU need to consult the dictionary buddy, better yet, consult a damn history book. There is NOTHING stopping unqualified people from changing the data Hutch, and once again, according to the article BAD SCIENCE is running rampant and people are being asked to CHANGE the data. Let me give you something similar to what you gave me "although this data suggests that X is happening, several experiments have suggested that B is a true representation of what is really happening and, for socio-economic reasons, it would be best if we avoided relying on X because the general consensus affirms B"

Hutch, by CHANGING something FROM the ORIGINAL you are failing to provide an accurate report. By changing the results from the original you ARE withholding the data, and the correct data has a limited chance of getting to the light. This is an act of suppression, Hutch. CHANGING data may RESULT in the suppression of data. If it is widely accepted that the world is round, you prove without a doubt that it is a square, but your reports have been edited to appear as if the world is round (to maintain status quo) or that it is in fact a triangle, has the truth been suppressed? YES! And no person within his RIGHT MIND would disagree with that. Hutch, if changing data and supression do not go hand in hand I need you to explain something for me. When white americans enslaved Afrikans what did they do to suppress knowledge of their past or of each other (slaves)?

While I do agree with some of this, I cannot bring myself to agree in totallity. Due to the field being competitive, the quest for funding, the quest for making the breakthrough, and the quest for winning an accolade, I can't say that few scientists are willing to take shortcuts that may result in ridicule. And what gets me is people who have been reliable and are not fraudulent may still be looked on as such if they do not go along with the general consensus. But nevermind the fact that you know most people in teh scientific community, Hutch. :dead:

I wish you would believe in Jesus so you aren't boiling in hell, but do you see me loosing sleep over it? Hell no. Listen, until next week, the ONLY thing we have to go on in regards to things being changed is the article, your link and americas history. I do not NEED a defense of the article being poorly written because YOU are the one saying it was poorly written. Why would I use that for my defense?

(EMPHASIS MINE)

Look at the underlined words in bold. Thats all we need to discuss. You can toss the article out the window, you can toss your link out the window and who are we left with? Big wig washington cats who have the ability/power to change or suppress WHATEVER they wish.

Which is why you have 10,000 scientists signing a petition. But according to the article, some of the data is NOT sound. Of course they are using them for scapegoats for their policies, and why can they get away with it? Because they have the shit on lock and have placed their people in a position of power. Now ask yourself. Are we dealing with people who practice integrity and morale? If not, how can we expect their puppets to behave in the proper fashion? How can we expect for them (the puppets) to give unbiased results when there is a limited checks and balance system in place?

Which I agree with.

Not if the scientist didn't tamper with it. If those who are UNQUALIFIED tampered with it you have a problem, and this is probably why it is coming to surface right now. The scientists have probably did exactly what you did but later found out it wasn't his fault.

And yes he can get a job somehwere. McDonalds is hiring and Wal-Mart has employment during the holiday seasons. :dead:

If the powers know not to fuck with the data people in that article wouldn't talk about bad science. Again, it is insane to believe that somewhere along the u.s. hand has not skewered the results by flat out changing them.

No Hutch, that is not the way it works all the time. Data CAN be confirmed which is why you have The Innocence Project and similar groups who use DNA to exonerate convicts or call for more questioning of DNA evidence already gathered. Hutch, where you come from it may be easy to just "get another test", but in america, it is hard for people to get another test especially when appeals have been exhausted or finances are not availiable to the person in need.

What is your take on these:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/crimelab/3042171.html
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/crimelab/2717648.html
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/crimelab/1815633.html
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/crimelab/2000212.html
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/crimelab/2023997.html

Thanks for the compliment!

I don't believe you. Simple as that.

I think part of the reason why you don't understand what I am saying is because I am often referring information as data. From here on out (next thread actually) I'll be more specific. Thats actually my bad. Look at the following:

See above, and if the results have been CHANGED the information/conclusion IS wrong.

Again, my bad.

Yep! Biblicus Scientificus.

We will find out next week.

The actual statement does not mention all areas of science, Hutch. You and I both know this. Because the petition stated it does not mean it didn't happen.

We will. Next week. We will find out if data has been changed (as implied in the article) or we will find out if you are correct in your belief tht nothing has been changed only suppressed. Until that time comes, have a soda or a glass of milk.

WORDS IN BOLD IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING! If I didn't already know? HERE IS WHAT I PREVIOUSLY POSTED (proof your reading should be questioned.)

:dead: x hutches eyes....

Hutch, if data has been CHANGED and you are not privy to the information BEFORE it was changed the ORIGINAL information has been suppressed. That information has been WITHHELD from you, and we both know withholding something IS suppression.

But isn't the conclusion presented as data? "Here is the data...here is the research...here is the report". I am not saying that these people are changing the tangible data. What I am saying is they are changing what is on PAPER, and because they are changing whats on paper, they have opened up a can of worms. What is on paper? Data.

(emphasis mine)

Now we are coming to an understanding, and this is what I am saying is occuring. However, I disagree with the conclusions themselves not being a form of data. It is data because it is information, and this information is being changed. I am not saying they are going in labs and changing shit (hell they could be), but what I am saying is they are changing the conclusions (by removing it or altering the facts). Again, I am referring to DATA as the results/conclusion, and the scientific community often does the same thing.

So we agree....whew that was hard.

Hutch · Dec 17, 2006

HERESY said:

I'm not saying that it has never happened - I clearly stated that when it does happen though, people can see right through it if they just open their eyes. An almost infinite number of things were not mentioned in the article, but that's no reason to include them as implicit just for the sake of argument. The article doesn't mention the unreliability of certain statistical software packages, but the scientists aren't signing the document because they want better government regulation of software companies.

HERESY said:

Bad science - the term includes a lot of things. For the most part, at least in my field, bad science is when scientists don't follow the correct scientific method (perform experiments objectively, include replicates of their experiments etc.) and then draw bold conclusions from the data they've gathered.

HERESY said:

The real data is usually out there for the public to see if they knew where to look and had the motivation to actually read and interpret the data themselves. The majority would consider this a waste of time and thus it is an act in futility where the scientists are concerned.

HERESY said:

A lot of scientists are really unhappy about the way the US government is handling their reports because they do present the data in it's factual form, but exclude certain sections and draw false conclusions. I've never heard of any examples of the US government changing a scientists data, altering the specific values they produced in a certain experiment, and then presenting them as factual. It most likely has happened at some stage, but it wouldn't be as widespread as you assume.

HERESY said:

Often, but not in this case. For advisory committees, the data still exists, the only difference is that the people on the committees are not scientists and thus they have no integrity when it comes to science. If you had worked in the field of atmospheric science for 30 years and received a report presenting data which suggests a drastic increase in global mean temperatures, you would feel compelled to tell the world, they deserve to know. However, if you're just a government pleb who's only motivation is money, then the best way for you to handle the new data is to make sure the world DOESN'T know.

HERESY said:

It's not that they can't change it, it's that they don't need to. This keeps everyone happy. They're not calling the scientists liars, they're not specifically altering the data but they're still getting what they want. Propaganda. Tell the people what they want the people to think, and the people will oblige. They will omit specific information or include information that they refute using data produced by bad science, but to the public science is science - most don't know that there's a difference between good science and bad science.

Re: your statement - it is very similar to mine, although they can never say 'the general consensus affirms B'. The reason is that only a very small percentage of experiments provide evidence in favour of B, and thus the general consensus supports the experiment that they are trying to refute.

HERESY said:

Yes, you are failing to provide an accurate report. The data you present is true, you're just not getting the full story. Just as I mentioned in a previous post, it will alter the holistic scope of the research. I strongly agree that important data is suppressed, I've never disagreed with that. My argument revolves around the incorporation of deliberately falsified data in these reports. You must have misunderstood my previous position - yes, changing data would result in the suppression of data. If the data is sensitive enough to change though, they would suppress the data whether they chose to change it or simply omit it from their reports. The suppression comes first - whether they change it or omit it comes later.

HERESY said:

Some people do bad science to win grants and awards, they would not do it in the quest to make a breakthrough though (bad science can only make breakthroughs serendipitously). These people come and go though - the science community is like a girls high-school. Every day people come in talking about so-and-so researcher from Germany and what he's done, so-and-so researcher from Japan and what she's done etc. Some people would be willing to take the shortcut which may potentially win them an award whilst also potentially ending their career, but consistency and good work ethic is most important in science. Again, I am not saying NO scientist would ever do this - the vast majority would not though.

HERESY said:

Exactly. They are to blame, not the scientists.

HERESY said:

Exactly. The reason why these scientists felt obliged to sign the statement in the first place is because they, who's careers revolve around integrity, are getting the short straw from the government. Yes, the scientists signed the statement because these puppets are giving biast results. We are in agreement here.

HERESY said:

Perhaps.

HERESY said:

They would have, VERY RARELY, changed the data. Again though, they don't NEED to change the data. Why change the data and risk not only making the scientists extremely unhappy but risk exposing themselves as being fraudulent when they can get the same result by just suppressing certain data and altering the conclusions and recommendations?

HERESY said:

I've read the first of those articles, and it appears to be a case of bad science. Specifically, the article states that independent scientists thought that the original experiments contained inaccurate statistics and complained that they could not replicate the original findings. This is bad science and the original researchers should have done a more thorough statistical analysis and at least performed triplicate experiments before they said 'yes, it IS his DNA' instead of 'preliminary results suggest that it may be his DNA'. People should only present data when they strongly believe it to be true.

HERESY said:

See above. I strongly believe that evidence can be inconclusive, hence the need for replicates and independent analysis. Again, two weeks ago I cloned a gene into a plasmid. When I ran it on an agarose gel, it was the right size. This doesn't prove that my gene successfully integrated into the plasmid though. I performed a restriction digest and got bands of the right size, then I performed a PCR reaction and also got bands of the right size. AGAIN, this doesn't PROVE that the gene is in the plasmid. I have to send away the plasmid and get the DNA sequenced, and when I align it with my gene of interest and it matches, only THEN can I say 'this plasmid definitely contains my gene'. If not, then it's BAD SCIENCE, something I'm not a big fan of.

I won't argue every point from here on because I believe that our argument stems from a different definition of data and that, in the most part, we are in agreement;

Me: The data does not change, however the suppression of data and the false conclusions drawn from government puppets decreases the validity of the data and, for all intents and purposes, makes their data obsolete.

You: The suppression of data by governmental puppets and the biast conclusions presented to the public directly reflect on the data which, if presented in it's original form, would lead to a different reaction from the public.

Essentially, the data is sound - the original scientists USUALLY follow a good scientific method and draw appropriate conclusions. However, when this data is passed onto the governmental advisory committees, which are now run by those who are not scientifically trained, the conclusions are altered and important data is suppressed, resulting in a false representation of the data. It is this representation of the data which has been changed, not the data itself. Conclusions are always based on the data, but depending on who is writing the conclusions, unless the data is HIGHLY specific, conclusions can vary wildly. The scientists will refer to the myriad of previous studies which support their claims (i.e. that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to melt at an increasingly rapid rate), whereas the puppets will alter these conclusions, refering to data in alternative studies which support their own policies. There is a big gap between the data and the conclusions drawn from such data, and it is this gap which has been infiltrated by the government and is now painting a bad picture of numerous scientific studies.

Hence it is this twisting, staggering segwei between the data and conclusions that is being manipulated and presented to the public as scientific uncertainty, allowing the government to do whatever they want whilst adding a perceived credibility to their claims in the form of 'good science'.

Search

10,000 scientists protest political interference in the scientific process

Hutch

Sicc OG

Hutch

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...

HERESY

Hutch

Sicc OG

Hutch

Hutch

Sicc OG

Hutch

JLMACN

JLMACN

JLMACN

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...

HERESY

Hutch

Sicc OG

Hutch

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...

HERESY

Hutch

Sicc OG

Hutch