Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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.
Truth is, my biggest fear with Republicans having any power is their insistence on this emphasis on religion as a force for good and their distrust of science.
They believe that a man raised the dead, walked on water, multiplied fish, and gave sight to a blind man. But at the same time they find the concept of man-made Global Warming to be intolerable.
Restricting tax-funding is not the same as to "destroy" science. You're still free to conduct your scientific study of Chinese prostitutes' use of alcohol, just not on the taxpayer dime. Nothing has been destroyed. Even more laughable is that idea that this somehow is a move towards 'theocracy.'
This reminds me of when Sandra Fluke demanded a law to require her school to pay for her birth control. Otherwise, she reasoned, her right to birth control was being denied.
Lack of ability to follow logic is much more likely to destroy science than anything.
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.”
Truth is, my biggest fear with Republicans having any power is their insistence on this emphasis on religion as a force for good and their distrust of science.
They believe that a man raised the dead, walked on water, multiplied fish, and gave sight to a blind man. But at the same time they find the concept of man-made Global Warming to be intolerable.
That scares the hell out of me.
Well, don't take it too hard, they are at least embracing social darwinism....
Restricting tax-funding is not the same as to "destroy" science. You're still free to conduct your scientific study of Chinese prostitutes' use of alcohol, just not on the taxpayer dime. Nothing has been destroyed. Even more laughable is that idea that this somehow is a move towards 'theocracy.'
This reminds me of when Sandra Fluke demanded a law to require her school to pay for her birth control. Otherwise, she reasoned, her right to birth control was being denied.
Lack of ability to follow logic is much more likely to destroy science than anything.
Speaking of logic, do you really believe that when this bunch of politicians start evaluating science, they will be completely impartial and civic-minded? As a scientist who regularly gets my cajones handed to me when I submit a journal article, I know that as imperfect as it is, the scientific process culls idiotic ideas fairly effectively. This is precisely the opposite of the "filter everything through my partisan lens as part of my perpetual campaign" mindset that permeates modern politics. How long have we held on to the trickle down narrative, when it has clearly proven to be a farce? It lives on because it serves the interest of the powerful, not truth. Scientists and judges, who aspire to truth, much be insulated from the political process or intimidation and/or pseudoscience will result.
The Left's version of science is any amateur that agrees with them. There are so many people that they like to list as "climate scientists" that have nothing to do with science at all, like a math teacher or a simple weatherman, just because they agree with them.
Speaking of logic, do you really believe that when this bunch of politicians start evaluating science, they will be completely impartial and civic-minded? As a scientist who regularly gets my cajones handed to me when I submit a journal article, I know that as imperfect as it is, the scientific process culls idiotic ideas fairly effectively....
I doubt that any bunch of politicians would. I wouldn't want a Michele Bachman sitting in judgment over science, but then I sure wouldn't want a Hank Johnson either. But if you're using taxpayer dollars there is no way to ultimately insulate from congress, because it is their job to control the tax-fund spigot. If they don't exercise oversight, they're not doing their job.
I know it's not an easy question because we can't have a total separation of science and state. Consider the DOD alone, and clearly there cannot be separation. But if you're getting taxpayer dollars, you can't expect to be insulated from politics.
OP - since when is the federal government not funding scientific research "anti-science"?
You want to do your own research?
Fine.
Secure your own funding.
Liberals spin anything that is opposed to big government funding or involvement as "anti-whatever".
That is because the liberal's wet dream is of an all encompassing big government that controls and regulates everything.
The liberal dream is the very antithesis of liberty.
It is essentially socialism - which Marx and Engels said eventually evolves into communism
Register as a Democrat and become a soldier of an entity that emulates the policies of the biggest mass murderers in history - Chairman Mao, Secretary Stalin, and Pol Pot.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
