Actually, the vast majority of grants come from the private sector in the form of R and D.
You are correct however, that the “scientific community” works at the pleasure of those
That supply the money to operate the labs.
e.g., “New study – smoking doesn’t cause any long term health benefits” funded by Phillip Morris.
Or, “New drug XYZ is a miracle cure for cholesterol/diabetes/the clap” brought to you by a major
Pharmaceutical company that owns the rights to drug XYZ.
Its really the same thing in our industry, AISC and ACI sponsor competing “studies” to prove that
Steel/concrete is a better/cooler/cheaper structural material.
It all comes down to common sense; if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.
“Follow the Money” works as well now as it did during Watergate.
David L. Fisher SE PE
Senior Principal
Fisher and Partners
372 West Ontario
Suite 301
Chicago 60654
312.622.0409 (m)
312.573.1701
312.573.1726 (f)
www.fpse.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Polhemus [mailto:bill@polhemus.cc]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:59 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Climate Change - Part 1 of 2'
Thor Matteson wrote:
Scientists are born skeptics--that's what drives them to refine their hypotheses, and continue research rather than accepting things on faith.
In our day, scientists are born BUREAUCRATS, which leads them to determine which side their bread is buttered on, and skew their researches accordingly.
I do not share this lofty view of "the scientific community," because the academic tenure system and the fact that the vast majority of grants come from government and are thus political in nature, leads me to conclude that, humans being what they are, they're just as likely to feather their own nests as anyone else.
The problem is, they want to make sure that their nests are feathered with MY MONEY.
'
BIG problem.
(SIXTY MINUTES EXPOSE WE'LL NEVER SEE: "A Look Inside 'Big Science'"