Is science corrupted by money?

[Autumnleaf]

Is the focused areas of funded grants causing biased results in scientific research? Is money corrupting science?

 

[RDKirk]

Is the focused areas of funded grants causing biased results in scientific research? Is money corrupting science?

I see "milk is good" studies funded by the milk industry and then see "milk is bad" studies founded by PETA.

 

[Autumnleaf]

I see "milk is good" studies funded by the milk industry and then see "milk is bad" studies founded by PETA.

There are climate change studies funded by the government who want to create a carbon tax. Do the studies which show no evidence of man made climate change get more grants? Cui bono

 

[JackofSpades]

I think it would make sense to believe that science is as vulnerable for corruption as everything else humanity does, is.

 

[RDKirk]

There are climate change studies funded by the government who want to create a carbon tax. Do the studies which show no evidence of man made climate change get more grants? Cui bono

So is this thread really just another rant against climate change science?

 

[Autumnleaf]

So is this thread really just another rant against climate change science?

So this post is just another mindless defense of an unproven theory that has had billions of dollars thrown at trying to prove it?

Does money corrupt research when it cherry picks pet causes?

 

[essentialsaltes]

There are climate change studies funded by the government who want to create a carbon tax.

The idea of creating a carbon tax came after the discovery of climate change. Governments have much easier ways to raise taxes than NSF grants.

Do the studies which show no evidence of man made climate change get more grants? Cui bono

Good question. Now that those funds are increasingly being anonymized, it's getting harder to tell who is doing the funding. Especially when these sources are intentionally undisclosed.

"In the past decade Soon's research has been funded largely by fossil-fuel interests,[10] which provided over $1.2 million in funding over 10 years, including $409,000 from The Southern Company and $230,000 from Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. This potential conflict of interest was not disclosed in a number of papers published since 2008, leading the Smithsonian Institution to investigate whether Soon had violated conflict-of-interest policies.[2][11][12] Soon says he has "always complied with what I understood to be disclosure practices in my field generally"."

 

[Audacious]

No, it isn't. The scientific method exists in such a way that science, as a whole, is not outwardly biased by things like money, because many, many different sectors and groups fund scientific endeavors; because of things like repeatable experimentation, it is hard to pay off scientists to come up with a certain result, because those scientists don't want to be known as frauds within their fields and the scientific community as a whole, and because of things like many different scientists being paid by many different people, scientific conclusions come together against bias and not because of it. (For 90% of a group of scientists to agree on anything about their field, it has to be despite conflicting interests and biases.).

To reject scientific consensus shows an ignorance or misunderstanding of the scientific method or a complete rejection of reason.

 

[Strathos]

Follow the money - last time I checked over 10 times more was spent by fossil fuel companies to discredit AGW than was spent by anyone to support it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Scientists should be as vigorous in providing solutions as they are in identifying problems. They sound dire warnings, then leave the room leaving scientifically clueless leaders running around like chickens with their heads cut off.

 

[SuperCloud]

To reject scientific consensus shows an ignorance or misunderstanding of the scientific method or a complete rejection of reason.

I don't know about that. Phrenology was so popular in the 19th century that American courts were convicting Americans on trial through the expert testimony of men specializing in phrenology.

The consensus in science often changes. Usually with birth pains too.

Scientists are as biased as any other people walking around. Through the scientific method a good attempt is made to dramatically reduce that bias. However, it's usually never entirely eliminated. First of all, the schooling of any scientists biases him or her to the ideas and grand picture they were taught their. Likewise, with routes and means to searching for a solution to an unsolved problem.

 

[bhsmte]

So this post is just another mindless defense of an unproven theory that has had billions of dollars thrown at trying to prove it?

Does money corrupt research when it cherry picks pet causes?

Here is the good news.

It is not difficult for other scientists (and there are plenty willing to do so) to point out the flaws in bad research and expose the same.

 

[Vlad The Exhaler]

Is the focused areas of funded grants causing biased results in scientific research? Is money corrupting science?

Money cannot corrupt science or religion. It can only corrupt insofar as it influences the conclusions attributed to science or religion.

 

[RDKirk]

Money cannot corrupt science or religion. It can only corrupt insofar as it influences the conclusions attributed to science or religion.

It can corrupt the collection of information long before conclusions are made.

I was taught long ago: "Never fall in love with your own hypothesis. It causes you to see only the data that fit your love and ignore the data that don't."

 

[durangodawood]

It can corrupt the collection of information long before conclusions are made.

I was taught long ago: "Never fall in love with your own hypothesis. It causes you to see only the data that fit your love and ignore the data that don't."

Thats one of the cool things about science: that you are taught things like that^^^.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Is the focused areas of funded grants causing biased results in scientific research? Is money corrupting science?

I do not think that it causes biased results. However, I do think that it undermines the spirit of science--theoretical science is not valued, and the money overwhelmingly goes to research that will produce findings with immediate commercial applications.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Is the focused areas of funded grants causing biased results in scientific research? Is money corrupting science?

Perhaps not in that way. Where I live scientists are studying our lakes, ostensibly to find ways to improve water quality. However, water quality never improves because they receive grants to study communities of organisms that only exist in dirty (hyper-eutrophic) waters. Clean water=no study=no money.

The DNR has final authority over the lakes, and they are (admittedly) managing them for "Trophy Northern Pike", a fish that thrives in hyper-eutrophic, weedy waters.

Swimmers, pleasure boaters, lakeshore property owners, and others who would enjoy a really clean lake......can take a hike.

 

[ChetSinger]

 

[jmarsh456]

Yes, definitely money is corrupting science. There are a lot of examples in this regard.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, definitely money is corrupting science. There are a lot of examples in this regard.

Can you provide some?