Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Allen" data-source="post: 317795" data-attributes="member: 389">While I, as a scientist, would agree that there are unscrupulous people in the scientific field, much like any other field, I take great offense with such a broad characterization of the morals of the scientific community. In particular, most govt scientists are supported by the taxpayer through a salary and they don't need to grovel or get pushy at the trough like academics or consulting firms (sorry, Guy).  In general, a scientist is paid to answer questions using the scientific method. As is often the case, how the question is posed can really put a "direction" to the work and may leave other important questions unanswered.  However, the vast majority of scientists I know will not sell their soul for a research grant; e.g arriving at a predetermined outcome. It's one of the most important reasons we scientists submit our work to our peers for official review. So to think that Dr. Joe Schmoe (who we might think has a financial interest in a given research project) can get nameless peers to review and concur with Schmoe's work when THEY AREN'T GETTING A CUT, seems to be a bit of a stretch of reasoning. Peer review is an important underpinning of the integrity of the scientific community. Also, I would like to note that ethics in engineering and science were quite extensively incorporated into my coursework at UND.- - - Updated - - -Like many, I have issues with how the CDC and Fauci have done a poor job of justifying what seems to be an ever-changing position on masks, quarantine times, etc, etc.  The bottom line is that we have learned a great deal in the past year about this virus and combined with supply constraints early on that prevented the use of masks by the general public (remember,  we let the medical community have what was available).  Hell, the asians have used masks in public as a way to limit person to person transmission of colds and flu since at least the mid-late 80s when I was over there, so we had already known for years that there was at least some benefit to masking the public during cold and flu season.  The question was always "how much".  Same thing with quarantine times, they chose to err on the side of caution early on, then reached a conclusion (with much more data) that those quarantine times could be adjusted, etc. Like I said, I try to not be too hard on the "experts", but their messaging has sucked from Day-1.</blockquote>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA