Moderator: Peak Moderation
tut tut tut Biff.biffvernon wrote:That'll be the part of Antarctica that's in the South China Sea then?JavaScriptDonkey wrote: I meant sub contracting to other academic enterprises... for whom it isn't so far away. Like ... China
Points here are:JavaScriptDonkey wrote:
The brains are involved in designing the experiments and analysing the data. the run of the mill data collection doesn't require such expertise.
Genius lies in asking the right questions.
That is how most science in this country is done.woodburner wrote: Treating scientific research as just a business risks getting poor research done merely to allow some of those involved to profit from it.
That's a very large part of the problem in research. You're always left wondering who funded it, and what they had to gain from the findings. Ben Goldacre has written some brilliant stuff about that type of problem in pharmaceutical research.JavaScriptDonkey wrote:That is how most science in this country is done.woodburner wrote: Treating scientific research as just a business risks getting poor research done merely to allow some of those involved to profit from it.
Exactly RC, the recent bee episode where major research found nothing (because the sponsor had excluded research in the area their products were active in) is as good an example as I can think ofRenewableCandy wrote:That's a very large part of the problem in research. You're always left wondering who funded it, and what they had to gain from the findings. Ben Goldacre has written some brilliant stuff about that type of problem in pharmaceutical research.JavaScriptDonkey wrote:That is how most science in this country is done.woodburner wrote: Treating scientific research as just a business risks getting poor research done merely to allow some of those involved to profit from it.
Research papers declare their funding. As ever it is up to the reader to decide how valid the research findings are given what is published.RenewableCandy wrote:That's a very large part of the problem in research. You're always left wondering who funded it, and what they had to gain from the findings. Ben Goldacre has written some brilliant stuff about that type of problem in pharmaceutical research.JavaScriptDonkey wrote:That is how most science in this country is done.woodburner wrote: Treating scientific research as just a business risks getting poor research done merely to allow some of those involved to profit from it.
Certain types of publications have to, but the information doesn't always make its way accurately into any further coverage such as newspaper articles, "review" papers writen by other academics, or other papers that cite the work.JavaScriptDonkey wrote:Research papers declare their funding.RenewableCandy wrote:That's a very large part of the problem in research. You're always left wondering who funded it, and what they had to gain from the findings. Ben Goldacre has written some brilliant stuff about that type of problem in pharmaceutical research.JavaScriptDonkey wrote: That is how most science in this country is done.
Obviously. We do want the research done. We do want it done by BAS because they're good at it. We are willing o pay the taxes required. Where's the problem?JavaScriptDonkey wrote: If we want to see the research done we will have to find ways to fund it.
Hello everyone. Thanks so much for signing the petition to save the British Antarctic Survey.
The Natural Environment Research Council, the funding body planning to merge BAS with the National Oceanography Centre, will close its consultation on this proposal in just a few days' time, on October 10th. You can see details here on both the consultation and how to respond to it. http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/bas-noc.asp.
NERC will of course use responses to shape its next steps. As well as making representations to Vince Cable via this petition and other routes, it would be marvellous if many of us fed into the consultation too.
The comments on the petition are among many sources of good information to use in making a response. If you click the 'like' filter on the comments you will get those most appreciated by your co-signers. If you have a little time to look at these and any other information you can find to complete a response to the consultation by October 10th it could make all the difference. You might like to see an article by former US Vice President Al Gore published in today's Independent on Sunday by way of background as well. It is here http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 00812.html
Please do submit something to the consultation if you have time, and if you can encourage more colleagues, friends and contacts to sign the petition, please do that too. The political leaders who will need to live with what NERC propose are increasingly aware of the criticisms. The more of us who sign up the better.
Thanks for getting involved with this. It is vital we keep an independent BAS and protect this great British brand and its world leading reputation.
Best wishes
Tony Juniper
The problem seem to be that you'll only accept it as good science if it's done by the British Antarctic Survey instead of, say, the French or Argentinian Arctic Surveys.biffvernon wrote:Obviously. We do want the research done. We do want it done by BAS because they're good at it. We are willing o pay the taxes required. Where's the problem?JavaScriptDonkey wrote: If we want to see the research done we will have to find ways to fund it.
Oh yes, the problem is the government does not care about science. No scientists in the Cabinet, only two MPs with a career in science. It'll all end in tears.
Well yesRenewableCandy wrote:s.
I'm afraid "getting RC started" on this constitutes its own punishment...
but,Are you suggesting that every other Antarctic research establishment is hopelessly corrupt and tainted by evil corporate sponsorship?However all this is distraction. I was calling for Antarctic Research to be sub contracted to other Antarctic researchers, not to Disney Corp.
Yes. I was at least. I don't trust anybody that hasn't earnt it. That attitude has served me very well and continues to do so.JavaScriptDonkey wrote:Well yesRenewableCandy wrote:s.
I'm afraid "getting RC started" on this constitutes its own punishment...
Are you suggesting that every other Antarctic research establishment is hopelessly corrupt and tainted by evil corporate sponsorship?However all this is distraction. I was calling for Antarctic Research to be sub contracted to other Antarctic researchers, not to Disney Corp.
We have no way of knowing to what extent they will become so if the BAS is no longer there, and in the event that they do, we shall not be able to remedy the situation. We shall have lost the skills base, and probably a chunk of those longitudinal data sets that are so useful (and so rare) for research of all types.JavaScriptDonkey wrote:Well yesRenewableCandy wrote:s.
I'm afraid "getting RC started" on this constitutes its own punishment...
Are you suggesting that every other Antarctic research establishment is hopelessly corrupt and tainted by evil corporate sponsorship?However all this is distraction. I was calling for Antarctic Research to be sub contracted to other Antarctic researchers, not to Disney Corp.
No...people only say that about the ones they disagree with. For peak oil, it works when economists get involved. When they declare peak oil has happened, they are golden. When they estimate that peak oil hasn't happened and won't for awhile, they are dogs.JavaScriptDonkey wrote:Well yesRenewableCandy wrote:s.
I'm afraid "getting RC started" on this constitutes its own punishment...
Are you suggesting that every other Antarctic research establishment is hopelessly corrupt and tainted by evil corporate sponsorship?However all this is distraction. I was calling for Antarctic Research to be sub contracted to other Antarctic researchers, not to Disney Corp.