About the Author

Dan Greenberg is a longtime observer of science policy and politics. He is the author of "Science for Sale: The Perils, Rewards, and Delusions of Campus Capitalism" (University of Chicago Press), as well as other books, and has published widely in newspapers and popular and professional magazines.

About Brainstorm

Brainstorm is The Chronicle Review's team of bloggers on ideas, culture, and the arts.

RSS | Atom

Gina Barreca
Mark Bauerlein
Marc Bousquet
Kevin Carey
Laurie Fendrich
Teresa Ghilarducci, guest blogger
Sara Goldrick-Rab, guest blogger
John L. Jackson Jr.
Stan Katz

Brainstorm Alumni

Eric Banks
Dan Greenberg
Michael Nelson, guest blogger
Marty Nemko, guest blogger
Graham Spanier
Stephen Joel Trachtenberg
Bob Zemsky

Search

Recent Posts

Nobel Hype | Comment [3]

McCain and Obama Differ Little on Science Policy | Comment [5]

A Name on a Mailing List Is Forever | Comment

Stodgy NIH Announces New Program for Risky, Far-Out Reseach | Comment [2]

Obama Outlines Changes for Science Policy | Comment [4]

Featured Articles By the Author

A New Source of Research Money

A Question for the Gates Foundation: Where Do You Want to Go Today?

Science in the Public Sector: Who's Making the Decisions?

Self-Restraint by Scientists Can Avert Federal Intrusion

So Many Labs, So Little Money

October 10, 2008

Nobel Hype

Now that another round of Nobel prizes has been awarded, consideration should be given to abolishing these powerful but often misleading accolades to scientific and literary achievement. That’s not going to happen, since the Nobel brand brings international glory and attention to the homeland of the prizes, Sweden.

Nonetheless, the robotic-like reverence evoked by the prizes is strangely out of whack with the realities of the honored achievements. Among the thousands of prizes for intellectual accomplishments awarded annually, the Nobels alone command front-page, prime-time notice. Though they’re here to stay, the attentive world might usefully subject them to realistic understanding. Hard to believe, but take away the pomp of bestowal by the King of Sweden and the accompanying cash awards — now $1.4-million — and the prizes lose a lot of allure.

The odd exception is the Nobel Peace Prize, a politically focused award that confers celebrity status on the recipient. For putting an international spotlight on the winner’s plight or cause, the Nobel for peace is matchless and different from the scientific and literary prizes.

For all the prizes, the winners must be alive at the time of selection, which eliminates many high achievers whose work failed to receive timely recognition. No more than three individuals may share a prize, which frequently leads to injustices in the modern era of team research. And several major fields of research are not eligible for the prizes. There’s no Nobel for mathematics, engineering, environmental studies, or the social sciences, with the exception of economics, which was a late add-on.

As specified in the 1895 will of Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite, the initial prizes were for peace, literature, chemistry, physiology or medicine, and physics. The prize for economics was added in 1968 and first awarded in 1969. Though Nobel’s will stated that the prizes were to be awarded to those “who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind,” practicality and custom eroded that requirement, so that prizes have sometimes been awarded for decades-old achievements. Peyton Rous, an American physician, discovered tumor viruses in 1911. But the Nobel Prize eluded him until 1966, four years before his death. Given the rapid pace of science, there’s always a backlog of Nobel-worthy recipients for whom the date of demise is the governing variable.

Though careful study goes into choosing the winners, history has not always endorsed the Nobel selections. The 1949 prize for Medicine or Physiology was shared by Egas Moniz, a Portuguese surgeon who developed and promoted
prefrontal lobotomy for treatment of psychiatric disorders. The procedure was enthusiastically adopted by a small number of surgeons, but came to be regarded as ineffective. It is now regarded with revulsion, as well-intended medicine gone amok.

The Nobel for Literature often goes to authors whose merit has not attained significant recognition beyond their native lands. Meanwhile, many major authors in major nations work and die without receiving the hallowed call from Stockholm. To the chagrin of many mid-career economists, the late-arriving Economics Prize was initially confronted by the task of honoring a raft of elderly economists before they inevitable collided with the ban on posthumous awards. The geriatric overhang now seems to have been dealt with.

Unique among the Nobels, the Peace Prize reflects the political taste of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, which consists of five members of the Norwegian Parliament — a hangover from the time when Norway was an appendage of Sweden. Peace recipients include Al Gore and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King. Worldwide attention and support given to the Burmese dissident Daw Aung San Suu Kyi are attributable to her status as a Nobel Peace Prize recipient.

The case against the scientific Nobels is clear. They’re usually out of touch with the working realities of contemporary science, often arbitrary in their limitation to three awardees, oblivious of important fields of research, and sometimes plain wrong in their assessment of scientific validity.

Benefitting from the public’s bedazzlement with Nobel celebrity, petitions bearing the names of Nobel laureates are frequently thrust into public affairs, though on many issues that they address, they’re no more expert than other citizens. Armored by their prizes, they are generally immune to criticism.

A rare exception dates back to 1963, when Robert Hutchins, former president of the University of Chicago, fired a blast at Nobel glory: “A scientist has a limited education. He labors on the topic of his dissertation, wins the Nobel Prize by the time he is 35, and suddenly has nothing to do…. He has no alternative but to spend the rest of his life making a nuisance of himself.”

September 19, 2008

McCain and Obama Differ Little on Science Policy

The presidential candidates have declared their intentions on issues deemed important by the scientific community. And it turns out that there’s not much difference between them.

That’s not surprising, given the near absence of ideological controversy over scientific matters and the scientific community’s deliberate aloofness from partisan politics. But it is unfortunate that both candidates have essentially brushed off the scientists with syrupy assurances. There are many changes that would be beneficial for the support and utilization of science, but in the context of big-league politics, they’re small stuff, not worth precious time in the middle of a bitter election campaign.

The scientific community’s government wish list is small and tidy: Send more money, minimize regulations affecting research, and show us respect. And essentially, that’s what it got in Obama’s and McCain’s responses to 14 policy questions submitted by a broad-based organization of scientists called ”Science Debate 2008”, and now available for comparison. (I discussed Obama’s replies in a post on Sept. 4; McCain’s answers were issued on Sept. 15.)

The candidates are in harmony on the three big science-related issues that have stirred controversy throughout the Bush administration: climate change, stem-cell research, and protection of scientific integrity. Matching Obama, McCain acknowledges that climate change is a dangerous reality, thus going beyond the Bush administration’s grudging acceptance of a climate problem. Both candidates endorse the cap-and-trade method for reducing carbon emissions. McCain calls for building 45 nuclear reactors; Obama is for “a new generation of nuclear electric technologies.” Both are for federal support of stem-cell research, with nods of concern toward those who have moral qualms, and both agree that scientific findings should not be distorted or ignored for political purposes.

Taking a slap at the Bush administration’s demotion of science advice in the presidential staff structure, McCain says he’ll have “a science and technology adviser within the White House staff” and will revive the withered White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Obama is curiously silent about high-level science advice, except for promising to “establish the nation’s first Chief Technology Officer to ensure that our government and all its agencies have the right infrastructure, policies, and services for the 21st century.” Since the the job of presidential science adviser and the White House science office are beloved by the scientific establishment as their envoy and embassy in Washington, it may be that Obama’s inattention was inadvertent and not a signal of intended changes. But we don’t know for sure.

Both candidates endorse carrying on with NASA’s celestial turkey, the financially insatiable, but useless, International Space Station. No surprise there, given that the manned-space supporters are organized and fanatical about their only haven in space, while doubters are scattered and unfocused. Why stir up an issue that was long ago abandoned as hopeless by sensible observers of research policy?

Though both candidates are promising wide-ranging changes in the way Washington manages the nation’s business, neither addressed the dysfunctional condition of the Department of Energy, or the moribund management of the National Institutes of Health, where more grantees are over age 70 than are under age 30.

Outside of science, McCain and Obama differ greatly. Perhaps the winner will take a fresh look at the scientific enterprise and promote beneficial changes. But in their responses to the 14 questions, they show little difference.

(Test-tube photo by Flickr user jurvetson)

September 15, 2008

A Name on a Mailing List Is Forever

Strange things happen with mailing lists, as everyone with a mailing address already knows. Still, I wonder why the direct-mail industry—which I read somewhere remains a great prop of the economy, even in the Internet age—can’t get things right.

As a journalist, I receive complimentary subscriptions to various periodicals that want to spread the word on what they’re publishing. Useful for me, and for them. Last year, two identical copies of one of these comp journals began to arrive. I notified the journal of the surplus copy. Nonetheless, for months, the duet delivery continued, despite further reminders from me. Then all delivery of the journal ceased—from two copies to no copies. My pleas for help brought assurances that they’re working on it. A few months after the initial alarm, single copies returned. Then came a deluge of the copies I had missed—two of each.

Once entered on a list for a sales catalog, a name and address not only remain there forever, but like windblown seeds drift on to mailing lists for other catalogs. Long ago, I purchased a marvelous telephone attachment that, at the touch of a keyboard button, set off bugles, raucous laugher, whistling bombs and explosions, screeching tires, baby cries, and so on. It was especially useful back in the days when telephone sales calls were unrestricted. The device eventually expired, probably from overuse. Ever since I made that purchase, I have been blanketed by catalogs jammed with an incredible variety of electronic gadgets. Included, it’s alarming to note, is an assortment of inexpensive devices for easy eavesdropping, indoors and outdoors. Failure to purchase is no deterrent to further catalog deliveries.

Even little organizations, with presumably small lists, can’t get things right.

A previous occupant of the house I live in departed from this address 35 years ago, yet a newsletter addressed to her by a small college continues to arrive. Possessing no forwarding address, and unwilling to bother, I toss ‘em as they arrive.

Finally, I am on the mailing list of a renowned emporium of fashion, Victoria’s Secret. Every few months, I receive a postcard that entitles the bearer to a pair of panties, gratis. I wonder how I got on that list. So does my wife.

September 10, 2008

Stodgy NIH Announces New Program for Risky, Far-Out Reseach

It’s not customary for a philanthropic organization to confess that the bulk of its awards support unadventurous plodding and that creative ideas of potentially great value are routinely turned down.

So, let’s hand it to the National Institutes of Health. It has just issued such a confession in announcing a new and supposedly bold program of research grants designed to elude scientific conservatism and make big leaps in knowledge and health care. But don’t expect a fast track to biomedical nirvana. The new program at the $30-billion-a-year NIH “follow years of discussion as to how to encourage thinking outside the box,” according to a heavily involved NIH official, Alan Krensky, head of an internal think tank at the Bethesda behemoth. Budget plans call for a total of $250-million over five years—if money is forthcoming.

Intended to be “transformative”—i.e., make an important difference in health care and scientific understanding—the new grants are designated T-R01’s, to distinguish them from the plain old R01’s, NIH’s traditional basic grant for investigator-initiated research. Coveted for their prestige, as well as the accompanying money, the old R01’s have long constituted the scientific core of NIH’s multi-billion-dollar extramural program, a mainstay of research in academic medical centers and many university research departments.

With the overall budget in the doldrums for the past five years, and applications for NIH money carefully screened by external peer-review panels and internal councils, the odds for success have declined to one in five of those seeking support. As the success rates have slumped, the biomedical gossip mill has resounded with warnings to play it safe by seeking money for sure-shot research rather than big leaps into unknown territory. Now comes the official confession, ”NIH Announces New Transformative R01 Funding Program,” in which NIH says, yes, it’s true, but now we’re going to do it differently, with a relatively small portion of our cash.

“While R01 grants support the bulk of mainstream NIH investigator-initiated efforts,” NIH states, “the structure and review of R01 proposals can discourage submission of the most bold, creative, and risky research proposals.” T-R01s, with new review criteria, are the remedy, the announcement continues, adding that the purpose is “to support exceptionally innovative, original or unconventional research that will allow investigators to seize unexpected opportunities and cultivate bold ideas regardless of the anticipated risk.”

In the ebullient comments from the biomedical mandarins backing the new grants, outsiders can glimpse the arthritic condition of the world’s great biomedical-research institution.

Keith R. Yamamoto, UC-San Francisco, who co-chaired the NIH committee that drew up plans for the new grants, reiterated support for the long-shot approach, stating, “Conventional wisdom says that R01 applications of this sort are ‘dead on arrival.’ The hope is that the T-R01 program will liberate scientists to unveil extraordinary ideas and approaches and that novel review and support procedures will select the best for funding.”

NIH Director Elias Zerhouni pitched in, too, stating that the new program “will pilot novel approaches to peer review to facilitate identification and support of the most ground-breaking, high-impact research.”

The new program is worth a try, but doesn’t come close to the problems that inspire NIH to proclaim a turnaround in favor of bold ideas, scientific risk, important breakthroughs, high-impact research, and all the other techniques and values that should dominate the workings of an effective philanthropic organization.

The political reality behind the inspirational words is a struggle between two sectors in the biomedical-research world. On the one hand, there’s the traditional biomedical research community, which regards NIH as a bank for investigator-initiated basic in academe, particularly in medical schools. On the other, there’s a broader research and health-care community that wants NIH to focus its vast resources on health rather than science. Director Zerhouni has fought a long battle on behalf of greater emphasis on health-related research, most notably in establishing the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. Designed to “accelerate the translation of research to improvements in public health,” the Roadmap is regarded by NIH’s old timers as a diversion from the true path. On paper, it’s supposed to take up 5 percent of the NIH budget, someday. But so far, it has received less than 2 percent, along with continuous sniping.

NIH is too big and too encrusted with old-boy alliances and obligations, customs and traditions. Congress should break it up into several granting agencies, including a virtual NIH that would do its reviewing and granting on line. Slow to adopt online review, NIH still mainly relies on face-to-face meetings of review panels, which entails some 18,000 reviewers traveling to Bethesda three times a year for two to three days of discussions. The big goal is to reduce the time required to get a grant out the door—currently about nine months.

Change is promised by both presidential candidates. Maybe NIH will be on the list.

September 4, 2008

Obama Outlines Changes for Science Policy

Though the Obama campaign is based on a promise of change, he apparently doesn’t plan to change much in government relations with the scientific enterprise.

There’s the customary assurance of more money for ever-insistent scientists and a pledge of bureaucratic shifts — rather minor ones — here and there. The unpopular federal restraints on stem-cell research would be lifted, but they have been crumbling anyway. Climate change would be recognized and confronted, but that too has been happening. And more honesty and less political spin would be mandated in scientific affairs, thus returning matters to the pre-Bush era.

That, in summary, is the Democrat’s response to 14 science and technology questions posed to both candidates by a group of scientists under the title of Science Debate 2008.

The McCain campaign has not yet answered.

The authors of Obama’s response are not identified, but they obviously are mainstream policy wonks who find little wrong with the Bush way in S&T, apart from budget neglect and the preference for political fantasy over scientific reality.

Obama says he will double basic research budgets over the next decade, including science supported by the Pentagon. And he would build up research in the Department of Homeland Security, by far the most dysfunctional agency on the federal landscape.

Assuming Obama is talking about dollars not adjusted for inflation, which is how Washington normally discusses the federal budget, a 10-year doubling would approximately restore the pace of research growth that prevailed for many prior decades governmentwide. Some agencies fared better than others, but overall annual growth was about 7 percent, in current dollars. For the past two years, federal R&D spending has been flat — for the first time since recordkeeping started in 1972.

Energy research in the Obama plan would increase by a total of $150-billion over 10 years—which isn’t much, given energy’s dollar value in the national economy.

Obama would also put additional money into improving science education, but seems hesitant in the face of the dismal outcome of prior efforts. His prescripition is for more research on schooling in these fields. Apart from a reference to a $4,000 tax credit for higher education, no specific amounts are mentioned for education.

Oceanography, bioterrorism, and water are also cited as areas for expanded scientific inquiry.

Obama calls for several bureaucratic changes, including revival of the National Aeronautics and Space Council, which existed from 1958 to 1973, supposedly as coordinator of the government’s multi-agency space activities. In reality the space council did little, since it was ignored by the Pentagon, which quietly became the big spender in space. The council eventually lapsed away, unmourned. An effective revival depends on how much power it possesses, which, in turn, depends on proximity to the president.

For aficionados of bureaucratic strife, the Obama science plan may contain the seeds of Machiavellian drama. The only mention of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is in connection with a proposal to establish a committee within its premises for science and technology education. No mention is made of the science adviser to the president, supposedly the government’s highest-ranking science official, who usually also heads OSTP.

Sore memories persist of Richard Nixon’s abolition of White House science advice in 1973. Enraged by the scientists’ failure to support some of his major sci/tech goals, such as missile defense and the supersonic transport, Nixon said he didn’t need science advice. Following a restoration by Gerald Ford, our scientific mandarins have doted on the importance of a scientist in the White House — which is nowhere mentioned by Obama.

Given the neglect of the traditional White House post by Obama — though perhaps it is innocent — it’s noteworthy that Obama proposes the creation of a new high-level federal post, Chief Technology Officer. Its function will be “to ensure that our government and all its agencies have the right infrastructure, policies and services for the 21st century. The CTO will lead an interagency effort on best-in-class technologies, sharing of best practices, and safeguarding of our networks.”

While academics have heretofore dominated high-level scientific advice, it is perhaps worth noting that CTO is a rank more common in industry than in universities. Is this a clue to authorship and sci/tech policy directions if Obama wins? I don’t know.

Policy-oriented scientists tend to be antsy during presidential campaigns because their profession heavily depends on federal money and their egos require recognition and patting. And so they badger the candidates to declare their intentions for government care and support of science. Candidates usually brush them off with papers along the lines of Obama’s responses to the 14 questions. The Democrats know that the scientific community is overwhelmingly Democratic and can’t be made any more so by special massaging — so why bother? The Republicans usually make a minimal response, knowing the science vote is not theirs. Both parties realize that scientists regard themselves above politics, which means they don’t raise money or organize votes.

During the primary campaigns, Science Debate 2008 several times tried to round up the candidates for a debate on scientific issues — and got the brushoff each time. The public thinks science is good and we need lots of it, but it’s not a political issue.

September 2, 2008

Where $1-Million Is Modest Pay

It’s reassuring to learn that some major institutions of higher education are getting their budget priorities right. Support for this conclusion comes in an article in the August 29 Wall Street Journal, headlined “A Saner Approach to College Football.”

The salute to mental health derives from the relatively modest salaries paid to the football coaches at Brigham Young University and the University of Utah, though both are what is known as gridiron powerhouses. BYU’s Bronco Mendenhall, the Journal reports, “earned no more than $1-million” last year, while compiling an 11-2 record and a No. 14 ranking. His counterpart at Utah, Kyle Whittingham, did not fare as well in wins and losses, which perhaps accounts for his lesser recompense, “about $680,000.”

For the hired help in the classrooms and labs at these and other universities, the coaches’ pay is beyond munificent. In 2006-2007, full professors at private doctoral institutions averaged $136,689, and it was downhill from there throughout the rest of academe. But, in fact, coaches Mendenhall and Whittingham are practically working pro bono for their schools, giving it away, for who knows what reason?

The Journal reports that 21 coaches now make $2-million a year; last year, four coaches topped $3-million. Alabama’s coach is paid six times more than the president of the university. Economists tell us that in a market economy, price and value match up. Who knows?

Oddly, one need not be a winning coach to run with the hedge-fund crowd. Charlie Weis, the latest in a string of coaches who have misguided once-proud Notre
Dame to the little league of football, reportedly holds a 10-year contract totaling some $30-million. To some extent, however, money counts. The Journal calculates that 13 coaches who made $2-million or more had a .686 winning percentage last season, while those making between $1-million and $2-million came in at .606.

The downside in the news is that price control at Utah may be shaky. To keep up in football, the Journal points out, BYU “is working on a fund-raising program called Coaches Circle, that will create an endowment, paid for by boosters, to finance the inevitable raises needed to keep successful coaches from bolting.”

No point going against the inevitable.

August 25, 2008

Q&A With Dr. Grant Swinger: Welcome the China Menace

Following is an edited transcript of one of my periodic conversations with Dr. Grant Swinger, director of the Center for the Absorption of Federal Funds. Dr. Swinger, a longtime observer of the politics and economics of scientific research, is the recipient of many awards, including the Ripov Prize, for most grants concurrently held.

Greenberg: What’s new at your center?

Swinger: China. It’s promising. Ever since the Soviets collapsed, we’ve needed a menace. Welcome, China.

Greenberg: Please explain.

Swinger: Congress, the public, the press — they know very little about science. But you can always get them worried about who’s ahead. We tried using Europe after the Russians fell apart, warning that the Europeans were either catching up or getting ahead. But the Europeans were warning that we were ahead and getting further ahead. That’s not the way for allies to behave, but it’s understandable when budget time comes. People have to look out for their own.

Greenberg: Ahead in what?

Swinger: So many things. Eighth graders who take physics, number of papers in neurophysiology, rate of increase in financial support of nanotechnology, stem cell researchers who move to England. You can pick and choose. There’s plenty to go around.

Greenberg: But a lot of research is done collaboratively by scientists from different countries. Europe just started up a big particle accelerator for which the U.S. contributed financially and our scientists will do research there.

Swinger: Let’s not dwell on that. You can understand, we want our own, here, in the U.S.A.

Greenberg: So what do you about it?

Swinger: The routine is you assemble a package of examples of losing-the-lead, sign on Nobel retirees, put on a conference, call in the press, issue a report warning that if the trends continue, the consequences will be disastrous. Trouble is, we were saying it about the Europeans and they were saying it about us. Talk about a zero-sum game.

Greenberg: What happened?

Swinger: Nothing. We did nothing for Europe, they did nothing for us. Cancelled each other out. Fortunately, we got some budge lift from global warming. The White House didn’t want to do anything about climate change, so they took the easy way and put more money into research. It was very welcome, but no bonanza. Bio-terrorism looked hot for a while, but there’s more talk than money. We’re treading water.

Greenberg: That’s disappointing.

Swinger: I should add that with the Russians acting up these days, we’ve been asked about reviving our old Institute for the Resolution of Conflict Through Violence, but we don’t want to rush into anything. The history of government funding is stop and go.

Greenberg: How does China enter into this?

Swinger: Like with the Olympics, where they took the gold. They were slow in coming into science, and they’re still so far behind that they barely count in many fields of research. But, the good news is rate of change. They’re coming along.

Greenberg: With industrialization and a population four or fives times the size of ours, that’s to be expected, isn’t it?

Swinger: Yes, and we’re making the best of it — we’re emphasizing trends as an issue. We’re working on a report that will give you nightmares. Look for us in the presidential campaign and in the transition between election day and inauguration and after. Welcome, China.

Greenberg: Thank you, Dr. Swinger.

August 15, 2008

Scientific Misconduct Is Not a Hanging Offense---But

It’s widely believed that researchers found guilty of scientific misconduct have no choice but to turn in their lab coats and look for other work. I’ve always assumed that was so, from what I’ve observed and what I’ve heard from scientists. And I think that opinion is generally shared throughout the scientific community.

But it’s not so, says a contrarian article based on research into the fates of researchers deemed guilty of scientific misconduct in recent years. The belief that misconduct invariably or usually leads to scientific oblivion is unfounded, say the authors, Barbara K. Redman, of Wayne State University, and Jon F. Merz, of the University of Pennsylvania, writing in Science of August 8 (“Scientific Misconduct: Do the Punishments Fit the Crime?” subscription required).

They report that branding as a scientific miscreant can bring emotional and physical suffering, financial loss, and “major disruptions in … personal lives,” but a surprising number of the scientists they studied eventually resumed their professional lives.

Their sample was small—the 43 Ph.D’s, MD’s and MD/Ph.Ds among the 106 individuals found guilty of misconduct between 1994 and 2001 by the federal Office of Research Integrity. ORI watches over scientific purity for the National Institutes of Health and other Public Health Service agencies in the Department of Health and Human Services.

Under ORI rules, the punishable sins are “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.” In the Science report, the breakdown of offenses, including multiple infractions by 26 of the scientists, involved 36 charges of falsification or fabrication, 10 of plagiarism, and 12 of misrepresentation. Punishments consisted of debarment from Public Health Service grants and contracts and service on PHS advisory boards for approximately three years; 14 of the scientists were required to retract or correct published papers.

The 43 were described as “professional, faculty, or research scientists,” with all but one employed in non-profit organizations. Excluded from the study were students and fellows, who, justly or not, are probably more vulnerable to banishment from the profession than full-fledged degree holders.

From publications and other sources, the authors report, they located 28 of the 43 scientists, of whom 10 were still in academe, while eight others had moved to industry or “non-profit positions.” Twelve of the scientists published nothing after they were found guilty of misconduct.

Among the 43, of seven who agreed to interviews, six continued to publish after the ORI findings against them. The authors add that “43 percent of the academics whom we could trace remained employed in academia after being found guilty of misconduct, and overall, 19 of 37 scientists (51 percent) found to have committed misconduct continued to publish an average of one paper per year after their cases were decided.”

Scientific misconduct is not a hanging offense, and commonly is treated as an administrative rather than criminal matter. In 2006, however, a finding of misconduct against an NIH grantee was followed by criminal prosecution for fraud, leading to a one-year jail term. But, so far, at least, that was a unique outcome.

Nonetheless, given science’s claims on public confidence and support, the ordinarily light penalties for misdeeds and swift return to work of certified offenders do invite wonder.

August 12, 2008

Reading the News: Getting More in Less Time

The rising information glut necessitates methods for people to receive news and analysis and avoid wasting time. Follow these principles and you’ll learn more in less time.

Skip articles under headlines that end with a question mark, e.g., “Can McCain Close the Gap?” or “Who’s in Charge in Moscow?” or “Where’s the Economy Going?” Articles that convey information are reflected in assertive headlines. Thumb-sucking ruminations lend themselves to question marks.

Shun writers who lean on fatigued word combinations to signify sophistication.
Examples:

- “Across the pond,” to suggest intimacy with Anglo-American matters.

- “The devil is in the details,” to indicate deep knowledge of complex topics.

- “Between a rock and a hard place,” to indicate a difficult situation.

- “Cut to the chase,” to announce a focus on essentials.

These once were sprightly phrases, but over-use has drained their impact, leaving them only as handy tools for arthritic minds.

Beware of medical-miracle stories. The mystique of science and the desire for good news easily merge on the topic of frightful diseases, making cures, or hints of cures, a staple of contemporary news reporting. To avoid wasting your reading time, quickly scan such reports for the following essential cues of reliability: How many subjects were in the trial? Who paid for the trial? Who ran it? And where was it published? Small numbers of trial subjects should invite doubts, as should financing by a pharmaceutical manufacturer. The latter objection might be countered by strong evidence of independent control of the trial, but you can’t be sure. Publication in a recognizable journal is a plus, but they get fooled, too. In general, claims of great leaps forward in medicine merit skepticism, as they rarely occur.

The use of anonymous sources has been so discredited in recent times that reliance on this easily abused technique has been severely curbed by many news organizations. Nonetheless, anonymity survives, even in newspapers and other outlets that have pledged restraint in use of unnamed sources. The need for anonymity in delivering important news to the public is rare but real in some instances. For readers, distinguishing manufactured information from the real stuff is difficult. The best approach is to read carefully but reserve judgment when unnamed sources are cited on important matters.

So, for readers who want to get out from between a rock and a hard place and cut to the chase….

August 6, 2008

Stamp Out Election Polls and Surveys: You Can Help

In response to political surveys and polls, all good citizens should consider it their holy duty either to hang up or give misleading answers, i.e. brazenly lie. My rationale comes from a distaste for collaborating with people who aim to exploit me and others for their own goals — which is what these inquiries are for. In the midst of election season, it’s important to understand this.

Surveys seek to ferret out voter sentiments on issues that might affect voting. Polls seek voter intentions in order to determine who’s ahead and who will win. Let’s look at them separately.

The evils of political surveys are many, but biggest of all is that they turn the electoral process upside down. Instead of the candidate saying this is who I am and what I stand for and propose to do if elected, surveys plumb the electorate to identify what will sell on election day. As the campaigns proceed, and survey data accumulates, candidates pick up and drop issues, adjust prior positions, and reshape their persona to fit the findings. For or against off-shore drilling, affirmative action, fast or slow withdrawal from Iraq, tax cuts or hikes? Depends on what the surveys show.

Polls are a variant of fortune telling, as evidenced by their tattered performance over many elections. (Note how regularly the pollsters’ claims of unerring accuracy are followed, post-election, by sniveling excuses alleging unique circumstances that led them astray.) Nonetheless, the zest for knowing the future is so strong that polls occupy stage central in campaign journalism, despite the crackpot claim that 1,200 responses can accurately measure the political heartbeat of the American electorate. A big lead in the polls can create an aura of inevitability that demoralizes the campaign of the trailing candidate. A bad poll can inspire damaging sentiments: Why waste campaign contributions on a loser? Why bother to vote if it’s all over?

So, good showings in the polls becomes a high priority, leading to false claims from mercenary polling organizations and devious tactics. Among these is the so-called push poll, in which the caller subtly links the opposition candidate to rumors of foul behavior, and asks whether such personal failings should be a barrier to election.

The good news about surveys and polls is that they’re withering under technological changes and voter skepticism. The widespread shift from wired house phones to mobile cell phones creates great difficulties for demographic analysis. Caller ID enables voters to ignore unfamiliar intruders. And, in increasing numbers, voters who answer are promptly hanging up before the first question is uttered.

These developments signify good health in the electorate. Add a few fibs to the mix and the plague of polling and surveys might possibly become an electoral relic.

Previous