Problem with scientific research.
(media.gab.com)
Comments (18)
sorted by:
There is definitely truth to this. It’s more in the way of who gets grants in academia. Also there is a lot of groupthink.
Most scientists are very apolitical and just want to focus on their own research and have people leave them alone. The ones that are ambitious and want to move up play politics and those politics are almost always on the side of political correctness/liberalism.
Also a lot of times you have brilliant people with PhDs working for people with bachelor degrees (or business degree + undergrad science degree) who sometimes barely even understand the science, but know how to sound good in meetings and make twice as much as the PhDs.
Source: my dad is a scientist and has worked for many universities and pharma startups.
There's truth to this. Here in Canada, you can be denied a scientific grant, not based on the merits of your work, but, the lack of your "diversity & inclusion" contribution. This is only going to get worse, if things continue on their current path.
It's so disappointing how tarnished science is by groupthink, bribes, politics and discouraging anyone not to think outside the box. I've learned how bad it was by learning about the food industry and more recently the studies with hydroxychloroquine.
What's the difference between a Whor and 97% of scientists ?
The whore goes away after she’s paid.
She was paid with position... After assuming the position.
More appropriately, 97% of funding finds it's way into the hands of scientists who of their own volition are already predisposed to the opinion of the funders.
You don't bribe 97% of scientists out there to change their minds.
You find the post docs who agree with you, make sure their proposals are funded, and let the post docs that hold 'unacceptable' hypothesis starve their way out of academia and research.
Thanks Catturd
Fact check: False
It's actually 97.4%. And Phd Fluffy White Cat with Glasses though he could get away with his horrendous lies. Not with a professional fact checker on the job.
I work as a scientist and this is absolutely true. My recent research proposals (EU) are all tailored to progress "Agenda 2030" as the program requires, such that funding can be approved. They concern sustainability, safety and COVID thingies.
However, very little will come of such research projects. They are not innovative or stimulating innovation. It is just doing the bare minimum to get the annual reports approved after which you get the money. Most of these projects concern over 10 consortium partners. They can never produce any results beyond the bare minimum. Then after the project concludes you move on to the next project.
It is a system that is inherently broken. Politicians want to show how "progressive" they are. They spend large swabs of tax-payer money on funding organisations. These funding organisations create research programs to move research into certain directions. The funding organisations need to spend the money and they need something to show for it. The scientists come to the feeding station and will gladly join in all the bla-bla to get the food.
If I were a politician, I would ban such research funding by law. Only individual researchers would get some funding in the form of scholarships. The rest of the research is done more efficiently by civilians or companies.
BRILLIANT!!!!
In 2008 8 FDA scientists met with the Obama transition team to discuss the fact that they had been wanting to warn the people of the dangers of mammograms for years. The honest scientists were more afraid of the dishonest scientists, than the dishonest scientists were afraid of the honest scientists. I used to be able to pull up articles about that meeting which of course, nothing was done. Mammograms are still widely recommended and performed; and are very high in radiation; radiation causes cancer; thus our breast cancer rate is very high. Not unlike people running to get covid tests and vaccine and then finding out they have Covid. It is a long running pattern. It needs to stop. Interestingly enough, I can no longer pull up those articles. They have been watered down to say there was a letter sent. I wish I had saved it.
u/BerlinWallCrosser: or at least have to prove things those who fund them want.
I don't get people who say they "believe in" science at all. That's stupid. It assumes science is immune from outside forces and influences. Reality is money, politics, or just plain ego are often factors. I even had a prof once who wrote a book that was later banned for questioning the status quo on a certain theory of physics. And of course any scientist is going to come to the exact results his patron wants him too, especially if there is huge money involved such as with global warming.