Another great Bill Whittle video.
Another great Bill Whittle video.
Here’s a great article on Federal funding-induced bias in science.
I’ve been harping on this for years. Any scientific study that is funded by the government will be biased in their results to make the “customer” happy and continue to get the funding needed to continue their studies, regardless of the science involved, there will be a bias that leans towards the answer that the policy makers in question are looking for.
A prime example of this is global warming. The pile on mentality, and the bias needed to continue to receive funding from the government cannot be denied.
The purpose of this report is to provide a framework for doing research on the problem of bias in science, especially bias induced by Federal funding of research. In recent years the issue of bias in science has come under increasing scrutiny, including within the scientific community. Much of this scrutiny is focused on the potential for bias induced by the commercial funding of research. However, relatively little attention has been given to the potential role of Federal funding in fostering bias. The research question is clear: does biased funding skew research in a preferred direction, one that supports an agency mission, policy or paradigm?
Federal agencies spend many billion dollars a year on scientific research. Most of this is directly tied to the funding agency mission and existing policies. The issue is whether these financial ties lead to bias in favor of the existing policies, as well as to promoting new policies. Is the government buying science or support?
Our working definition of “funding-induced bias” is any scientific activity where the prospect of funding influences the result in a way that benefits the funder.
While the basic concept of funding-induced bias is simple, the potential forms that this bias might take are far from simple. Science is a complex social system and funding is a major driver. In order to facilitate research into Federal funding and bias it is necessary to isolate specific kinds of bias. Thus the framework presented here is a taxonomy of funding-induced bias.
H1B visas are killing American jobs. Don’t buy into the lies.
Originally posted on Upon Closer inspection:
A source on Capitol Hill has informed me of an amazing briefing today by a “Who’s Who” of industry lobbying groups (PNAE, CompeteAmerica, American Immigration Lawyers Association, FWD.us etc.), presented to congressional staff. The meeting was closed to the press, which is surprising at first — what lobbyist doesn’t want his/her message to be spread far and wide? — but the reason for excluding the press turns out to be quite startling.
The TITLE of the briefing says it all: FACTS YOU CAN USE To Prove That High-Skilled Immigration Is Good for the Economy. Prove to whom? Since the “you” is the congressional staff, it’s clear that the briefing is intended to help politicians convince their skeptical constituents that H-1B is good for them. I assume there is nothing illegal in that, but it is incredibly sleazy.
The document itself consists of a rehash of “studies” done…
View original 728 more words
Originally posted on Watts Up With That?:
Using the EPA, CEQ and other federal agencies to fundamentally transform America
ISIS terrorists continue to butcher people, while hacking into a French television network. Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons remains on track. In a nation of 320 million people, American businesses hired only 126,000 workers in March, amid a pathetic 62% labor participation rate. Wages and incomes are stagnant.
And yet President Obama remains fixated on one obsession: dangerous manmade climate change. He blames it for everything from global temperatures that have been stable for 18 years, to hurricanes that have not made US landfall for nearly 9.5 years, and even asthma and allergies. He is determined to use it to impose energy, environmental and economic policies that will “fundamentally transform” our nation.
He launched his war on coal with a promise that companies trying to build new coal-fired power plants would go bankrupt…
View original 1,207 more words
Originally posted on Twitchy:
It’s clear that some in the media aren’t intent on making the 2016 race all about issues and ideas, but Marco Rubio doesn’t seem rattled so far:
If they’re asking Rubio if he’s too young, will they ask Hillary if she’s too old?
A name is needed because the “reporter” in question may (or may not) be interested in a bit of history:
View original 57 more words