Is there a parallel between climate research and stem cell research?
It appears stem cell research is undergoing a peer review process problem much like the one identified in climate research: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8490291.stm
Once again, it seems a small clique are trying to control what science is published and it’s disturbingly coincidental that the journal Nature is implicated (like climate science publications and peer review).
What is going on in science these days and how will this affect society?
Not really.
Stem cell research is carried out by a small group of specialists. It would be easy for them to go astray.
Climate research is carried out by thousands of scientists working on aspects of the science independently.
Scientists measuring temperatures are checked on by those measuring Arctic ice, oceanographers measuring sea level, biologists studying species migrations, etc.
It’s a vast interlocking web of data measured by completely different specialists, which makes it essentially self correcting. Not to mention impossible to "fake".
This is the reason why the vast majority of scientists agree. In scientific terms, climate research is ROBUST, very insensitive to errors in any one piece of it.
I actually heard that when it was broadcast. Quite remarkable. Of course, Nature has a piece in its latest issue explaining that of course it doesn’t play favourites with scientists. Of course not!
.
References :
Not really.
Stem cell research is carried out by a small group of specialists. It would be easy for them to go astray.
Climate research is carried out by thousands of scientists working on aspects of the science independently.
Scientists measuring temperatures are checked on by those measuring Arctic ice, oceanographers measuring sea level, biologists studying species migrations, etc.
It’s a vast interlocking web of data measured by completely different specialists, which makes it essentially self correcting. Not to mention impossible to "fake".
This is the reason why the vast majority of scientists agree. In scientific terms, climate research is ROBUST, very insensitive to errors in any one piece of it.
References :
It’s sad that science has become so politicized. It happens when government gets involved in funding research. It’s always bad. These issues should stay independent and not dependent on government grants. The free market is a better indicator of what’s legit and what’s not.
There are some differences between these two issues however.
We know now that there is an enormous amount of fraud surrounding the AGW theory, but the stem cell research issue is merely clouded with misinformation.
Adult stem cells have proven to be extremely beneficial in curing all sorts of ailments, but the embryonic ones are totally useless so far. Nevertheless, there’s more money pushed towards embryonic stem cell research for political reasons and that’s where the corruption begins.
As we all can see, once government money infiltrates science, it can no longer be totally trusted.
References :
There are many parallels, including government funding with the goal of producing a specific outcome, politicization in general and misinformation in the political arena.
For example, re: embryonic stem cell research – the Bush Administration did not ban it. They simply opted against compelling taxpayers to fund it. Big Pharma was free to fund and conduct embryonic stem cell research.
References :
When you speak of a "peer review process problem much like the one identified in climate research" are you talking about the journal "Energy & Environment"? Otherwise could you please give a concrete example.
References :
I think it shows what happens to science when large sums of money controls the funding and direction of science.
Didier is on the right track. The Bush Administration did in fact fund research but limited the federal funding to a specific set of stem cells that were already available or at least that is the way I understood it. In addition they encouraged private research. The abortion rights crowd felt that anything restricting any access to any fetus was a threat. They accused Bush of endangering children in their typical partisan attacks. Some idiot Hollywood types blamed Bush for Christopher Reed’s death. The naked partisanship was similar to AGW, particularly the exaggeration.
There exists in every cell the blueprints for our structure. By uncoding the DNA and discovering how it functions, doctors and scientists could potentially save a lot of lives. It could revolutionize medicine. People with a political agenda focused narrowly on the fetal stem cells (as alarmists focus like a laser beam on CO2) because obviously these stem cells didn’t require much knowledge or technology to get them to replicate into various organs.
Many would not have any problem creating clones but in this case the government has a role to control science so that it doesn’t proceed in unethical ways. Many pro-Lifers saw a threat by some who might harvest of embryoes indescriminantly and this seemed to just encourage the pro-Abortionists. The pushed for fetus’s even when they didn’t need them. The science advanced to the point where adult stem cells were as valuable as the fetal ones.
Fetal stem cell alarmists couldn’t see the forest through the trees. What was more important in my opinion is understanding the code and how it told which cells to split when and how it created certain organs. If you could do that without fetal cells, what is the point in using them.
References :
I absolutely love how Bob conveniently forgets to mention that those who come up with the computer models that are used to scare the public with end of the world predictions are exactly alike. They are a small group, their research is not throughly peer reviewed, as you can’t check all f that code unless you are intimately familiar with climate modeling. Further, there research is not confirmed by other areas of science. The temp data can be, but the model data is not observational and thus the only confirmation is if they accurately predict the future. How have the models been doing? Are we seeing exponential increase in temps? Anyone, Anyone Bueller?
I do tend to agree with him that some warming is occurring, but the runaway global warming predicted by the models is not a scientific fact, but a bunch of guesses as to the strength of the feedback loops resulting in an unstable model that is unsuitable to model the earth’s relatively stable climate.
These scientists have fallen under the same trap and have been allowed to go astray by the scientific comuunity with false claims of certainty. Scientists should not allow such claims of certainty to go unchecked.
References :
Hmmm, robust seems to be one of the latest buzz words of the left. Very cool word. Afterall, we need words like that to save the earth from the tyranny of GW Bush and his evil weather apparatus. <kidding>
References :