Only 6% of scientists believe Bush didn't stifle science

[bascule]

This was a rather interesting:

 

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1549

 

According to a Pew Research Report:

 

An overwhelming majority of scientists say they have heard a lot (55%) or a little (30%) about claims that the Bush administration did not allow government scientists to report findings that contradicted administration policy. By contrast, just 10% of the public heard a lot about the claims and 34% heard a little; most say they have heard nothing at all about it.

 

About three-quarters of scientists (77%) believe the claims about the Bush administration are true, while just 6% say they are false. And virtually all of the scientists who say these claims are true – 71% of scientists overall – believe that these practices occurred more often during the Bush administration than during previous administrations.

 

I agree with the majority of scientists. Do you?

[Severian]

Undeniably true. But I think it is true that 99% of administrations stifle science.

[bascule]

Undeniably true. But I think it is true that 99% of administrations stifle science.

 

Well, that's where the final statistic comes into play:

 

"And virtually all of the scientists who say these claims are true – 71% of scientists overall – believe that these practices occurred more often during the Bush administration than during previous administrations."

[Pangloss]

10 out of 10 Catholic priests believe in an afterlife. They're the experts, so I guess I'd better straighten out and fly right.

[iNow]

10 out of 10 Catholic priests believe in an afterlife. They're the experts, so I guess I'd better straighten out and fly right.

 

One can measure changes in scientific productivity/rate of stifle. If you want your clever little comparison to have any merit, you'll need to let us all know how you measure whether or not there is an afterlife, and if acceptance is contingent in any way upon belief.

[Severian]

One can measure changes in scientific productivity

 

Can you? How?

 

Ironically, one of the things that is stifling scientific productivity is that government thinks it can measure scientific productivity.

[iNow]

Severian - I presume you've had to provide those who have provided you with research funding a status of your work to justify their grant? Or, had to check-in with a supervisor to share your progress?

 

That's just one way. Maybe another would be the number of papers accepted by topic. There are really lots of ways. Compare output under Bush to some baseline like output under Clinton. Really... I could keep going with such methods. It's basic research administration, really. I suspect that your post was much more likely motivated by a desire in you to make me look silly since I spoke of a religious idea with something less than respect and deference, not because my point was somehow invalid or faulty.

 

Regardless, Pangloss' point was irrelevant to the thread, as was my response to it, and so too this tangent now with you and I. If you don't mind, it might be more appropriate for us to return now to the discussion topic of the OP...

 

 

 

Speaking of the OP, it's not about measuring actual changes in scientific progress, just an exploration of the fact that a great many scientists feel that Bush stood in the way more often than he opened doors for their work to move forward and bear fruit.

[Phi for All]

I suspect that your post was much more likely motivated by a desire in you to make me look silly since I spoke of a religious idea with something less than respect and deference, not because my point was somehow invalid or faulty.

I just saw it as a comment on how a scientist's creative genius is often difficult to quantify by governmental productivity standards.

[iNow]

I just saw it as a comment on how a scientist's creative genius is often difficult to quantify by governmental productivity standards.

 

Again, trying to steer this thread back on topic, I don't think this interpretation is really relevant, either. The OP discussed how Bush stifled science. In what way do you suggest that the former president could have stifled the "creative genius" of scientists in our nation? That seems completely non-sequitur to what is being discussed. Of course, I'm probably missing something, so hopefully you'll clarify to help bring us on to the same page.

[Pangloss]

One can measure changes in scientific productivity/rate of stifle. If you want your clever little comparison to have any merit, you'll need to let us all know how you measure whether or not there is an afterlife, and if acceptance is contingent in any way upon belief.

 

Again, trying to steer this thread back on topic, I don't think this interpretation is really relevant, either. The OP discussed how Bush stifled science.

 

Actually it appears to me that the subject of this thread is what 71% of scientists believe. It is perfectly reasonable to discuss the subject of this thread, and offer a different opinion from yours regarding both its value and what it means.

[Phi for All]

Again, trying to steer this thread back on topic, I don't think this interpretation is really relevant, either.

It was a comment on your earlier comment. I would say either both are really relevant, or both aren't.

 

The OP discussed how Bush stifled science. In what way do you suggest that the former president could have stifled the "creative genius" of scientists in our nation? That seems completely non-sequitur to what is being discussed.

Since I was commenting on what Severian had said about government in general, I didn't feel it necessary to tie it to Bush. You brought up a point I didn't agree with and I wanted to mention my interpretation of what Severian said. I was trying to point out that science requires a creative spark in order to come up with the ideas that will later become theories, and creativity is difficult to measure in terms of productivity. That's all, iNow. It really isn't necessary to call my comments non-sequitor just because I'm disagreeing with you about Severian's motives.

 

Of course, I'm probably missing something, so hopefully you'll clarify to help bring us on to the same page.

I think you're missing the fact that my comment was based on something you yourself brought up. It was my take on what Severian meant, since I don't think Severian really intended to make you look silly.

 

I think government in general does stifle science, and I also think, from what I've read and been told, that the Bush administration did more than the usual amount of stifling. Governments fund research with certain objectives and parameters in mind, and I would imagine those parameters often interfere with true scientific pursuits.

[iNow]

I don't think Severian really intended to make you look silly.

When I said "silly," I was describing how I thought Severian was merely giving me a hard time because I was mean to a religious idea in a post, not because the idea I put forth was somehow false or invalid, as his response suggested. It's not the first time this has happened in a response he's made to one of my posts, and I'm rather certain it won't be the last. There is precedent for my assumption, but I stipulate it was just an assumption on my part. Fair?

 

 

 

I think government in general does stifle science, and I also think, from what I've read and been told, that the Bush administration did more than the usual amount of stifling.

While I tend to agree that the Bush administration did more than the usual, I am not certain I can align with your first point. Yes. In some, perhaps many, instances the government stifles science, but in many others it is a direct motivator.

 

In support of my suggestion are programs like NASA when JFK challenged them to bring us to the moon, and in the present day we are seeing similar challenges/calls for action from the government significantly (soon hopefully after it passes the Senate and is signed by Obama) helping along the science and technology of green energy like wind and solar. There are, of course, countless other examples where government has actively encouraged science, but the idea is that we all know there are some things which they stifle, and others which they help.

 

In short, I think it may be more accurate to suggest that government "steers" science, as there will always be things they do which help some research domains while negatively impacting others. The long and short of the article in the OP is that... under the Bush administration... there truly seem to be far more negative impacts across the board than there were motivations/help from Bush and his team, and that most of the "steering" they did for science was toward a great big hole in the ground.

 

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

It is perfectly reasonable to discuss the subject of this thread, and offer a different opinion from yours regarding both its value and what it means.

 

Please, sir... Do clarify for me how "10 out of 10 Catholic priests believe in an afterlife" is related to the subject of the thread, and how it is being described by you as a "different opinion" from mine which was offered. I found your reply snarky, completely irrelevant, and frankly pretty stupid, so I called you out on it.

Edited July 12, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Saryctos]

The long and short of the article in the OP is that... under the Bush administration... there truly seem to be far more negative impacts across the board than there were motivations/help from Bush and his team, and that most of the "steering" they did was toward hole in the ground.

 

Isn't the article really about the perception of negative impacts? Citing no examples of documented stifling, simply observing the beliefs of the scientific community.

[iNow]

Isn't the article really about the perception of negative impacts? Citing no examples of documented stifling, simply observing the beliefs of the scientific community.

 

Yep, exactly as I said in post # 7:

 

 

Speaking of the OP, it's not about measuring actual changes in scientific progress, just an exploration of the fact that a great many scientists

feel

that Bush stood in the way more often than he opened doors for their work to move forward and bear fruit.

[Pangloss]

I found your reply snarky, completely irrelevant, and frankly pretty stupid, so I called you out on it.

 

Had I said "The fact that these scientists believe the Bush administration stifled science does not in itself prove that it did so", I would have received the exact same sort of minor insult that I received in this case. And as Saryctos indicates above, it was on-subject. Your "steering" is inappropriate. Please move on from this. Thanks.

[Severian]

That's just one way. Maybe another would be the number of papers accepted by topic. There are really lots of ways. Compare output under Bush to some baseline like output under Clinton. Really... I could keep going with such methods. It's basic research administration, really. I suspect that your post was much more likely motivated by a desire in you to make me look silly since I spoke of a religious idea with something less than respect and deference, not because my point was somehow invalid or faulty.

 

My comment was meant in exactly the sense that Phi for All interpreted. I don't believe you can measure the worth of (all fields of) scientific output on a short time scale. Something you think is a minor discovery now, may have huge impact in 10 or 20 years time.

 

In fact, number of papers is a particularly bad way of doing this. Different fields have different 'traditions' for paper publishing, so it is practically impossible to compare say particle physics with photonics in this way. Paper counting can be very damaging.

 

Take for example Peter Higgs, inventor of the Higgs boson. His work is clearly something of scientific value, but it has absolutely no applications (yet). Peter's publication rate is rather low and he has published less papers than many (most?) postdocs. The original paper isn't even that well cited, because it become 'text-book' too fast, so that the authors of papers assume knowledge of the Higgs mechanism as a prerequisite.

 

Short term political pressures on scientific output inevitably push science towards short-term goals, and generally harm scientific development.

[swansont]

Isn't the article really about the perception of negative impacts? Citing no examples of documented stifling, simply observing the beliefs of the scientific community.

 

Hard to say without knowing exactly what was asked. Had I been asked the question I would have answered "yes" because I have anecdotal evidence of it being true, and that's probably what the poll is reflecting. The story says that the poll asked if scientists have heard the claims and then if they believed the claims to be true, i.e. do you find them credible. While this is still anecdotal, it's still not the same as religious belief — that comparison suffers from the fallacy of equivocation.

 

The bottom line is that it's a poll, and no matter how much the pollsters like to dress them up by mentioning sampling statistics, they are often not particularly scientific.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Can you? How?

 

Time spent doing science vs bureaucratic crap would be one measure.

 

But it's my experience that the government doesn't do this kind of assessment.

[iNow]

Another measure would be how funds were directed to the various fields from NIH or other government entities, and which fields saw a decrease in funding. As I said above, the methods are vast.

 

[EDIT]Either way, Severian, this will really go no where fast unless we agree up front on what it means to "stifle science" or to "hinder scientific progress." Without that agreement, we'll just keep spinning our wheels and continue talking past one another. [/EDIT]

 

 

 

 

Had I said "The fact that these scientists believe the Bush administration stifled science does not in itself prove that it did so", I would have received the exact same sort of minor insult that I received in this case.

No, actually. I would have completely agreed, as that would have been accurate and an important clarification exactly in line with the comment I made in post #7.

Edited July 12, 2009 by iNow

[Pangloss]

Short term political pressures on scientific output inevitably push science towards short-term goals, and generally harm scientific development.

 

Makes sense. Unfortunately the alternative of private sector funding often seems even MORE motivated towards short-term goals, in the form of profitable products, right? I guess the most long-sighted ones might be the endowment institutions, which add an additional step of removal which forces private funding sources to think of them on a purely altruistic level. (But I believe those funding sources are also the lightest in economic weight as well, yes?)

 

At any rate, this would seem to suggest that a compromise/combination of approaches is the best way to stimulate science over the long haul, and overcome disadvantages such as the one suggested by the OP. I'm not suggesting lessening government funding, though. I've never been convinced that government funding for scientific research was a significant drain on my wallet.

[iNow]

So long as we stop electing anti-science politicians like Bush (or even McCain with his campaign speeches mocking research, or Palin with her similar put downs of scientific work), I don't really care.

 

 

If the polls read correctly, republicans have a long way to go before they attract the science vote.

 

 

http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2009/07/scientists_religion_and_politi.php

On the political front, most scientists polled were aware of charges the bush administration meddled in science policy and most of them thought it was both true and worse than other administrations. Only a minority of the public (28%) had heard this, although most of them believed it was true, only one in six thought they were worse than previous administrations. Given the difference, it isn't surprising most scientists are Democrats (55%) or independents (32%) while only 6% identify as Republicans. If you count those among the independents who say they "lean Democrat", the figures go up to 81% versus 12% (counting those independents who "lean Republican"). The comparable figures for the general public are 52% versus 35%. Interestingly, 47% of scientists who work for private industry also call themselves Democrats.

 

I think Republicans have lost the scientist vote.

[Severian]

I've never been convinced that government funding for scientific research was a significant drain on my wallet.

 

An interesting statistic is that despite the threat of global warning and the 'energy crisis', we still spend more on ring tones than we do on fusion research.

[Pangloss]

Or on Grand Theft Auto IV.

 

Or to replace Yankee Stadium.