- Has the New York Times taken the first step to recovery – acknowledging scientific fraud exists on one of their favorite advocacies?
- Now if they would admit journalistic fraud in their newspaper . . .
That the New York Times (NYT) would give this guest editorial play is of note.
What’s Behind Big Science Frauds? by Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransk
The occasion for the article was the revelation very recently that a research study that was given much play across the galaxy, which alleged that attitudes toward gay marriage can be altered dramatically toward the affirmative by the occasion of talking to a gay person, was fraudulent. The NYT guest editorial is written by principals of an organization Retraction Watch whose vocation is to report incidents of retraction of scientific studies.
The Federalist Papers graphic
That an organization has such rich fertile ground on which to exist, the result of “scientific” manure, is a statement about the frequency of such occurrences. their organization* does not repudiate or denigrate true science, only the idol worship of somebody with letters after their name as being beyond repute. It is a worthy read into the culture of scientific research. Indeed we hope it will help people understand that “deniers” and skeptics about significant human caused climate change do so to challenge the policies advocated, the mythology of “science,” the alleged proofs, and bring out the existence of alternative explanations.
However worthwhile the article we believe it overlooks a key point. Publication in prestigious journals may be inviting, to fame seeking researchers and scientists, but the bigger attraction are the grant funds. Long ago it was realized by many in the so-called “science-academic community” that there’s a lot of dough out there for scientists willing to sell their soul.
If you want money to do a pet research project, many have learned that your chances of getting a grant are increased exponentially if you preface your grant proposal with “studying climate change as it affects X”.
This was exposed over a decade ago by Michael Crichton in his novel (based extensively on well-researched fact) “State of Fear”. He was, as is the case today and with other instances of criticism of leftist causes, so attacked, he publicly avowed he would never again touch the subject of climate change. DLH with R Mall.
Excerpts (and links) from the article:
Retractions can be good things, since even scientists often fail to acknowledge their mistakes, preferring instead to allow erroneous findings simply to wither away in the back alleys of unreproducible literature. But they don’t surprise those of us who are familiar with how science works . . .
Every day, on average, a scientific paper is retracted because of misconduct. Two percent of scientists admit to tinkering with their data in some kind of improper way. That number might appear small, but remember: Researchers publish some 2 million articles a year, often with taxpayer funding.. . .
Most science and health reporters rely on the top journals for news leads. They tend to move in a pack, descending on a small handful of news items each week. When the papers in those journals have the fillip of a hot topic, like sex or race, the frenzy is even greater. And yet many reporters fail to do the necessary due diligence before publishing their work. The drive for scoops is even greater in journalism than it is in science.
* We hope the gay marriage research expose is not an outlier for them and that the organization is not going to be agenda driven in the selection and reporting of its findings. We hope its association with The MacArthur Foundation , which supports public interest media, but also “conservation and sustainable development” which are too often cover words for big government, will not influence its dealings with matters of climate research and the rampant underlying fraud by “warmers.”
