- Joined
- Nov 28, 2011
- Messages
- 23,282
- Reaction score
- 18,291
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
Actually, those of us who pay attention to science are well aware of all sorts of conflicts, issues and disputes within the scientific community.Just presenting a side that you unscientific types don't ever see, since you get your -not- facts from pundits.
Many of us also ignore the pundits, and pay attention to scientists. (E.g. I don't rely on Al Gore for detailed information on likely rates of GMSL rise; that's NOAA's job.)
And again, the author doesn't acknowledge that the same issues he identifies are not limited to basic research. There's tons of conflicts of interest, bad science, manipulated papers, data omissions, replication issues etc in applied research. The motivations are just as problematic -- researchers want their theories confirmed, their funding can depend on success, egos need to be fed, and so forth.
In fact, I'd say that your pet peeve -- climate science -- is a good example of the benefits of basic research. We know that sea level is rising, which means coastal communities need to have an idea of likely levels of rise, how to prepare, and in what forms the possible damage might come (e.g. daily erosion, storm surges etc).