Quote:
|
Originally Posted by deek
CT, those involved in the scientific process do not tell lies, it is just that sometimes they don't tell the complete truth. I suppose it also depends on the suitability/validity of the questions being asked.
For example;
If scientists were asked if they believed oilseed rape crops increased the prevalence of allergy symptoms in the general population. The scientific response would be no (which is correct and could be validated).
However, if the same scientists were instead asked if they believed oilseed rape crops increased the prevalence of allergy symptoms in the local population who live in close proximity to the crops. The scientific response would be yes (which is correct and could be validated).
The outcome of a study/assessment can therefore be biased depending upon many factors including the desired outcome and who "pays the piper".
|
deek, I am going to take issue with a couple of points here. I suggest that if you asked scientists “if they believed that oilseed rape increased the prevalence of allergy symptoms in local populations who live in close proximity to the crops” the answer would actually be no. Instead if you asked was there evidence for this, the answer would be yes. In part the trouble with a question like this is that people fall into the trap of believing correlation equals causation, when that is not the case. In my reading of the literature, the only place where there is any evidence that oilseed rape increases the prevalence of allergy symptoms seems to be Scotland, yet oilseed rape is grown in many countries around the World. So a scientist in Canada, for example, would clearly and correctly answer the question you posed in the negative.
Second point, in my time working in a regulatory authority and in my subsequent interactions with regulatory authorities in the US and Australia, I have always found that the Government paid for the activities of the authority (including my salary at the time). I suspect the same is true in most developed nations. I have had some involvement with regulatory regimes in Indonesia and I am much less convinced about their freedom from corruption. Now someone might argue that the Government itself has a desired outcome and wants to influence the process to get that outcome. As the Government pays the salaries, this might be entirely feasible. However, the regulatory agencies that I am familiar with are at arms length (Statutory Authorities) from the Government of the day. There was a recent case I am familiar with where the Government wanted to overrule the Regulator. They had to introduce legislation to allow them to do so.
Oh and some scientists do tell lies. Unfortunately for them, they often get found out when others try to repeat the work and it is pretty much a career-ending event.