Comments on: At least they’re admitting it

By: RobP

RobP — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:50:13 +0000

PaddkJ
“At last, Nature makes no bones about what kind of rag it is. Let?s all applaud this quantum leap in self-awareness.”

If by quantum you mean the smallest measurable change, then you are quite correct.

Sorry for being pedantic, but in this case I think you have been more correct than you thought!

Rob

By: Tom Davidson

Tom Davidson — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 12:06:09 +0000

I have seen this technique of “applied grantsmanship” used for over 20 years. I first recall it in the 1980’s with the use of the “ozone hole” to ring alarm bells for attracting research funding into CFC alternatives (about the time the original Freon patents were due to expire). Now we see gratuitous references to “global warming” and “climate change” inserted ad hoc into otherwise responsible but uninteresting research papers. “Saving the world” has become a much sexier selling point for all kinds of research than any of the old ideas such as curing cancer, losing weight, or protecting endangered species, because it seems to be applicable to any research.

By: harold

harold — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:13:54 +0000

Nature News also interferes in disputes within scientific institutions.
Neuroscientist: my data published without authorization are ‘misleading’
“The director of a top laboratory in Germany has charged that two of his former research students took data from his laboratory without his permission and published scientifically incorrect interpretations of them against his advice.
Neuroscientist Nikos Logothetis (pictured), of the Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics in T?bingen, further claims that the journal involved, Human Brain Mapping, acted incorrectly by publishing the paper after he told them the data were inappropriate.”
I do not have access to the article, but a quote from the comments gives a different slant on the case.
“Although he agreed at first, Logothetis withdrew his permission when he realized that the data […] were being used to support a theory about spontaneous brain activity.”
A scientific dispute becomes administative/political and Nature weighs in (with a one sided view).

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080702/full/454006a.html

By: Ray

Ray — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:55:00 +0000

Nothing new in that.

“To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios,
make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have.
Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.”
(Dr. Stephen Schneider, NCAR, in interview for “Discover” magazine, Oct 1989)

By: PaddkJ

PaddkJ — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 19:18:09 +0000

At last, Nature makes no bones about what kind of rag it is. Let’s all applaud this quantum leap in self-awareness.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 00:27:22 +0000

That’s too bad - the world need a spinmeister who understands Bayesian statisitics.
I was pointed to the Oreskes video by Michael Tobis in response to a query as to why some believe that skeptics are all part of a huge conspiracy. It is a video on You-tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio&eurl=http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.asp?showID=13459

By: Briggs

Briggs — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 23:24:42 +0000

Not me, Bernie. I stole all those quotes right from the magazine article, which openly boasted of the practice.

Naomi Oreskes’s presentation?

By: Bernie

Bernie — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:53:18 +0000

Matt:
It looks like you have a career as a spinmeister if you ever get bored with plain ol’ numbers.
Speaking of spinmeisters do you have a take on Naomi Oreskes’ presentation, The American Denial of Global Warming?

By: benpal

benpal — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:15:33 +0000

Sorry to say, in some scientific circles this trick is already well known and abundantly used.
Science by press release.