Gunman At DC Pizza Parlor Was 'Investigating' Right-Wing Conspiracy 'Pizzagate' Lie

[Dill]

(12-05-2016, 09:46 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't know about the US, but in the scientific world here there always is some pressure to produce some kind of result that can be published. Which from time to time leads to some study with titles and claims with the word "possible" added that somehow disguise the fact that there's nothing real substantial to see.
A scientist whose research doesn't prove or show anything gets a harder time to recieve fundings the next year, and fundings are needed and money's often tight.

Not that I would say climate change is sensationalism on the part of the scientists, not by a long shot, but when someone claims "well, scientists need to have results" in order to be able to carry on, it's tough to say there's no truth to that at all. The point is not completely moot (although it in no way indicates that climate change is unproven or "looney").

Hollo, in US universities, research scientists who want funding beyond their salaries and departmental budgets have to write proposals for it addressed to some body within their university or to some entity outside it, such as the government or a funding foundation. That is usually a rigorous process. The proposer has to show how his work intersects with and extends existing research in some field, and what theoretical advances or practical applications are expected to result from it.

Usually, the proposal will be in competition with other proposals before independent boards who ultimately decide what is funded.  Under this system, it's not easy to get other people to pay for your research unless it's clear the results will likely pan out. This works well to the degree the profit motive is excluded.  "Insubstantial" research has never really been a problem, though fiscal conservatives would have you believe otherwise.

However, the system has broken down somewhat over the last 40 years, as universities are defunded year after year and made reliant on corporate or Defense Dept. funding. That funding usually has strings attached. It has the effect of turning researchers away from basic research and towards applied. E.g., With an initial gift or donation or grant, a corporation can turn programs and departments in the direction it desires, thus socializing the cost of its product research. Worse still, in many cases corporations can patent the results of tax-payer funded research.

That's the real story, not scientists scamming taxpayers for Climate Hoax research.