[Newsbot]

Title: House Republicans just passed a bill forbidding scientists from advising the EPA on their own research
Category: Science
Posted By: DrCaleb
Date: 2014-11-21 10:20:17

[andyt]

Hmmm, conservative sentiments seem similar on both sides of the border. Science, we don't need no stinkin science. Gues when you know you're on the right side (pun intended) who wants science to tell you you might be wrong.

[sandorski]

The Republicans just keep getting dumber.

[Vamp018]

At least they have brains. Democrats on the other hand are all brain dead.

[Xort]

$1:

Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, argued that the board’s current structure is problematic because it “excludes industry experts, but not officials for environmental advocacy groups.” The inclusion of industry experts, he said, would right this injustice

So they have activists on the panel but not industry experts.

I can't see how this is an attack on science.

$1:

In what might be the most ridiculous aspect of the whole thing, the bill forbids scientific experts from participating in “advisory activities” that either directly or indirectly involve their own work. In case that wasn’t clear: experts would be forbidden from sharing their expertise in their own research — the bizarre assumption, apparently, being that having conducted peer-reviewed studies on a topic would constitute a conflict of interest.

It's hard to be objective about your own work. Using your own work as a base for policy advice isn't good governance or science.

This is a good bill.

[Lemmy]

Xort Xort:

It's hard to be objective about your own work. Using your own work as a base for policy advice isn't good governance or science.

Actually no, it's not hard to be objective about ones own work. That's what we call science. And this isn't a one-man show. It"s a panel. That's what panels are for, for researchers to share their work and how/why it should be applied. That person is likely to be grilled by differing views on the panel. That's how they work.

Xortbus Xortbus:

This is a good bill.

Only someone completely void of any understanding of the role of research in policy formation would draw such a conclusion.

[bootlegga]

Sounds about par for the course...

[Xort]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Actually no, it's not hard to be objective about ones own work. That's what we call science. And this isn't a one-man show. It"s a panel. That's what panels are for, for researchers to share their work and how/why it should be applied. That person is likely to be grilled by differing views on the panel. That's how they work.

A panel that also includes activists with non science agendas to push based on ideology.

~

"We should do this, I have scientific proof, like this paper I wrote that says I'm right."

"You can't question my research it's been used to make public policy!"

Their are people out there that could take their own paper and say, wow I fucked that one up here and here and here. But that's likely harder to find than a Roc's tooth. Moreover when a scientist with a personal belief gets into a public position and can grab hold of the media they can do lots of real damage.

See the UK and the vaccine BS.
1 Part bad science, 2 parts media sensationalism.

This isn't limiting someone from being an expert in their field, but from using their own work, or work that references what they have done, as I'm reading it.

This is why we have stuff like meta analysis.

$1:

That's what panels are for, for researchers to share their work and how/why it should be applied.

I don't agree. I think that an advisory panel shouldn't be about publishing research but rather collecting information to make sound fact based advice.

[sandorski]

Xort Xort:

Lemmy Lemmy:

Actually no, it's not hard to be objective about ones own work. That's what we call science. And this isn't a one-man show. It"s a panel. That's what panels are for, for researchers to share their work and how/why it should be applied. That person is likely to be grilled by differing views on the panel. That's how they work.

A panel that also includes activists with non science agendas to push based on ideology.

~

"We should do this, I have scientific proof, like this paper I wrote that says I'm right."

"You can't question my research it's been used to make public policy!"

Their are people out there that could take their own paper and say, wow I fucked that one up here and here and here. But that's likely harder to find than a Roc's tooth. Moreover when a scientist with a personal belief gets into a public position and can grab hold of the media they can do lots of real damage.

See the UK and the vaccine BS.
1 Part bad science, 2 parts media sensationalism.

This isn't limiting someone from being an expert in their field, but from using their own work, or work that references what they have done, as I'm reading it.

This is why we have stuff like meta analysis.

$1:

That's what panels are for, for researchers to share their work and how/why it should be applied.

I don't agree. I think that an advisory panel shouldn't be about publishing research but rather collecting information to make sound fact based advice.

You want the Scientists there so that they can explain their Work/Findings, because Politicians know SFA about it.

[Lemmy]

Xort Xort:

"We should do this, I have scientific proof, like this paper I wrote that says I'm right."

"You can't question my research it's been used to make public policy!"

Well, you see, that's the difference between actual science and bullshit artists trying to pass something off as science. Fortunately 99% of scientists don't behave as you've described above. But we, regrettably I concede, do have that 1%, climate change deniers, religious "scholars" and such.

[Xort]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Well, you see, that's the difference between actual science and bullshit artists trying to pass something off as science. Fortunately 99% of scientists don't behave as you've described above. But we, regrettably I concede, do have that 1%, climate change deniers, religious "scholars" and such.

Not to be rude, but you have no evidence at all to make a claim of 99%. I get what you are trying to say however.

That said I would like to point out that in terms of personality the types of people most likely to be blinded to their own failures are in general the most likely to find themselves on things like advisory panels.

Just because someone has a degree doesn't mean they have washed themselves of human elements that can lead to failures, or are somehow now perfectly logical beings without personal motivations and bias.

sandorski sandorski:

You want the Scientists there so that they can explain their Work/Findings, because Politicians know SFA about it.

Scientists should be there to make expert opinions on the field overall and science in general, not just to restate their own work over and over.

In the Rogers Commission Report, Richard Feynman came in and showed how the established authority was blinded to some aspects and highlighted some of the failures of NASA.

If the commission had only used in field experts that came and made statements about how what they thought was correct all along the report likely would have been lesser for that.

~

Not being able to directly/semi indirectly reference your own work is a good rule. In any well understood field you should be able to find many other supporting works to make a policy suggestion. If everything is based off of one person's work then their is a very serious concern.

The potential loss from this rule is very minor and the potential harm it may avoid is very large.

[DrCaleb]

Xort Xort:

The potential loss from this rule is very minor and the potential harm it may avoid is very large.

Do you actually think that putting oil company funded Scientists on the EPA board while disallowing scientist that have intimate knowledge of their given field and not allowing them to reference it, is somehow a 'minor' change?

Should criminals now be required to sit on Parole Boards, while Lawyers and Judges not be allowed to cite law while sitting on said Parole Board?

Seriously, Senator Chris Steward is known to be in the Koch Brothers pocket! It's not possible for someone to be independent from their financial backers interests.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-con ... cosponsors

http://www.polluterwatch.com/chris-stewart

[BartSimpson]

There's nothing to see here. Whatever the bill was meant to do it won't get a hearing in the current Senate and even if it gets held over for the next Congress Obama will not sign it.

It's a moot issue.

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

There's nothing to see here. Whatever the bill was meant to do it won't get a hearing in the current Senate and even if it gets held over for the next Congress Obama will not sign it.

It's a moot issue.

Maybe as far as legislation goes. But as far as showing the mindset of the Public Cons, there is something to see.

[Lemmy]

Xort Xort:

That said I would like to point out that in terms of personality the types of people most likely to be blinded to their own failures are in general the most likely to find themselves on things like advisory panels.

Speculation. I'm not sure how you could begin to support that contention. And remember, we're talking about a panel, where one person is taken to task by the rest of the group.

Xort Xort:

Just because someone has a degree doesn't mean they have washed themselves of human elements that can lead to failures, or are somehow now perfectly logical beings without personal motivations and bias.

We're not talking about people with just a degree. We're talking about people, typically, with multiple degrees plus years of experience as professional researchers. Academics are used to the peer-review process. We're people who have pride in our work, yes, but part of having pride in ones work is to demonstrate professionalism, to know better than to behave as you suggest they might. Having pride in professionalism and objectivity is widespread among scientists. But, of course, there is that 1%...joke scientists attempting to pass off their bullshit as legitimate research.