Re: nbc Jeff Jacoby on the looters nbc


"Ukes" <duke_of_diddly@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:8neph11h8kuke0ml92rmis7nordmvivch5@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 13:32:26 -0500, "Gumboman" <noemail@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>

Jerry,

There is nothing really new here and nothing in the article that isn't a
somewhat more detailed analysis of the same thing I said in a couple of
paragraphs. Lots of folks just don't want to be bothered by the nutcases,
that doesn't mean that those who aren't bothered aren't free to do as they
choose, within the confines of having to obtain funding.

In the end researchers are free to make whatever decision they choose as to
what research they will conduct. If you go into science you have the same
freedom. I think it's a little presumptuous of all of us to tell a
researcher what they should or shouldn't do when we had the same opportunity
to accumulate the same set of academic credentials but chose other avenues
in life. Just because you may want something studied doesn't mean any
particular researcher would choose to do so. All that really means is go
study it yourself if you think it is that important and you can get the
funding.

As far as Jensen I'm aware of there being some controversy over his
research. I can't say the field he specialized in interests me very much so
I was never curious enough to keep up with the controversy. I'm not aware
that he was sileneced in any way or unable to get his research published. Is
there something I should know?



JH



>
> Jack,
>
> You've probably never heard of Arthur Jensen then, have you?
>
> And a study published in "Science" magazine earlier this year
> demontstates the self-censorship imposed by scientists.
>
> Jerry
>
>
> Scientific Method: Self-Censorship
> WASHINGTON, Feb. 11, 2005
>
> (AP) Some scientists are thinking twice about doing or reporting on
> certain research, reacting to political and social controversy in
> addition to legal restrictions.
>
> "It appears that controversy shapes what scientists choose to study
> and how they choose to study it, and we need to look a little bit more
> closely at the effects it might be having," said Joanna Kempner, a
> researcher at the University of Michigan.
>
> Kempner and co-authors from Brown University and the University of
> Pennsylvania conducted in-depth interviews with 41 scientists engaged
> in a variety of studies. They found that half felt constrained by
> formal limits, but even more said they were affected by informal or
> unspoken rules on what and how studies can be done. Their findings are
> reported in Thursday's issue of the journal Science, in a paper
> entitled "Forbidden Knowledge."
>
> Formal limits include such things as the ban on federal funding for
> most research on embryonic stem cells and restrictions on research
> involving humans.
>
> In many cases, too, scientific journals have their own rules, such as
> refusing to publish material they think might be detrimental to
> national security.
>
> But there also are fears about the ire of interest groups, such as
> opponents of animal testing, or about how a project would be perceived
> by the public.
>
> While formal and informal restrictions on research are not unusual,
> Deborah G. Johnson of the University of Virginia said they are not
> necessarily all bad.
>
> "On the one hand, you want a profession to have norms and to have some
> standards and some self-regulation. On the other hand, you don't want
> there to be an environment of fear of repercussions if they do
> something which they think is legitimate," said Johnson, who has
> studied similar issues but was not part of Kempner's group.
>
> One researcher, commenting on avoiding controversial work, told
> Kempner's team: "I would like to lunatic-proof my life as much as
> possible."
>
> Another reported deciding not to do a study involving offering food
> vouchers to drug addicts who tested clean.
>
> "That was something that thought they couldn't do," Kempner said in a
> telephone interview. "One researcher said, 'Can you imagine that as a
> headline on the front page of the newspaper, that we're paying cocaine
> addicts to stay clean?"'
>
> Kempner said, "A lot of researchers that we spoke to were risk-averse
> in terms of avoiding controversy." But, she added, "There were plenty
> of people who said controversy is a good thing, because it opens up
> topics to public debate."
>
> Militant animal rights groups were a concern for many, who worried
> about organizations that have invaded laboratories to set animals
> loose and destroy research.
>
> Kempner recalled one of her interviews. "All of a sudden he said, 'How
> do I know you're not from an animal rights organization collecting
> information to storm the place?"'
>
> Sometimes commercial interests can get in the way of research, Kempner
> added, saying there are cases when the pharmaceutical industry will
> ask a researcher not to publish a particular finding.
>
> Another example was a researcher who wanted to study what kind of
> environments can lead to sexual harassment. "She couldn't find a
> company that would let her ask those kinds of questions to employees,"
> Kempner said. They didn't want anything that might give one of their
> workers the idea to sue.
>
> She also cited the case of an alcohol researcher who felt some studies
> could not be done in this country, for example, a trial on whether
> alcoholics could be taught to drink in moderation.
>
> "Those kinds of studies, according to this researcher, couldn't be
> done in the United States because we live in a culture that believes
> addicts ... must quit cold turkey," and the work might undermine that
> position, she said.
>
> And there are cases of self-censorship, Kempner said.
>
> "Sometimes researchers depend on particular groups to give them access
> to data ... and very often they form attachments and really like what
> the group is doing. So, if they have a finding that undermines what
> the group is doing, they wouldn't publish it, some actually haven't
> published it."
>
> Kempner's research was funded by the Greenwall Foundation and the
> Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
>
>
>
>
>


.