I'm hard pressed to think of a government policy that isn't based on ostensible security. Higher taxes? fiscal security. Diversity programs and affirmative action? Emotional security. Increased scrutiny of NPO applications for "patriot" organizations? National security and Obama reelection security. Drones, Patriot Act? National security. Obamacare? health security. Social Security? Uh, figure that one out yourself.

The liberal trope "its for the common good" is just another version of "security."

Welcome, a1anx!

And, contrary to Severely, I'd say Percival didn't go far enough. Monkey house? No. More like planet of the apes.

The World's Most Interesting Man is a Ricochet member? Nice!

Forgive me for recycling a comment, but:

In the finest tradition of the new English speaking world, the bystanders remain standing by, filming while a man is hacked to death. The emasculation of Western society is an awful thing.

Ah, yes, in the finest tradition of the new English speaking world, the bystanders remain standing by, filming while a man is hacked to death. The emasculation of Western society is an awful thing.

I used to agree with you, Brent. Until, that is, I realized I could work the system to my advantage:

I used the new insurance rule for Tennessee drivers and the Obama refi policy to save so much money that I don't have to work as many hours. The hours I do work are from home, I make over $1400 a week! With all that extra time and cash, I can try all of the tricks to cut down on belly fat, especially that one that includes the new supersecret super fruit diet. Now I look and feel better than ever before, have more time and money, and am finally ready to enter the world of online dating. If one wife is good, two is better. . .am I right or am I right?!

I'll add, just to dodge an accusation that no one has leveled, that I am defensive about this but not naive. I definitely do not think scientists are an elite, holy group of experts beyond reproach. The previously mentioned deification of "experts" is not a good thing, period. The hard sciences have plenty of problems, some due to money, many due to ego and hubris. Politics certainly play a role; big names often get papers published a tier above where they should be. But that doesn't mean that most researchers aren't trying to do the best science possible.

And yes, there are countless examples of dishonest science coming from data manipulation or downright fabrication (see Retraction Watch for all of the endless fun), and many of those do come from the high profile fields. One of the top stem cell biologists was found to be a total fraud recently, he basically made up his landmark papers.

But again, it's not enough to assume that bad data is always the result of bad money. Science is hard, and despite our best efforts, often wrong.

[edited for clarity]

Doesn't this disprove the point you're trying to make? Scientists tried to replicate published papers, couldn't reproduce the results, and thus concluded the previous work was wrong. i.e. the scientific method.

Sometimes it takes a while for that process to work its way through, but science moves both very quickly and, in many ways, very slowly. New technologies are constantly emerging that allow researchers to study something in more detail, thereby calling in to question results from less advanced methodology.

The fact that some "landmark papers" are later shown to be wrong does not always mean "science has a problem." Sometimes, in fact, it means exactly the opposite.

You're not wrong, but maybe looking at an incomplete picture. Conversely, I may be too blinded by professional ego/defensiveness (likely). The problem as I see it is that many of the most visible scientists are those who give the rest a bad name. Squeaky wheel, grease, etc. We see the politicized types out front yelling that the debate is over, but in the meantime your average researcher is buried in the lab, trying to figure out how to test the latest model. Sure, everyone is resistant to seeing his ideas challenged, but presented with good data, most (some? a few?) scientists are willing to revise their thinking. But, these are "small" things, not nearly as sexy as the end of the world, so they don't get much attention.

I don't have numbers, this is only based on my impression, but I think the stem cell field has started to turn. Adult stem cells are looking good, and inducible stem cells are now relatively easy to make, so it's hard to avoid their advantages over ESC.

If you have to step away from Ricochet, I suppose reading poetry to your kids is an acceptable second.

Seriously, though, welcome back, and congratulations on a very well lived 6 months. Keep it up, don't let us drag you away from the good stuff.

It's also worth noting that on paper, anyway, scientists funded by public money are required to share reagents, methodologies, and raw data to anyone who asks following publication of a paper. If my lab makes an antibody, once we've published with it, our closest competitor could ask for a sample and we'd be obligated to provide it. In practice, of course, this doesn't always happen. Like gun laws, the honest guys have no problem following the rules/conventions, while the Michael Manns shirk them.

There is a push, generally coming from the scientists themselves but with some journal publishers and, to an extent, the NIH to 1) streamline the peer review process, 2) make all data (i.e. the raw data) from a published paper available online, and 3) change the publishing model to make most/all publications free access.

These changes wouldn't have an effect on the funding model, but if applied appropriately across all disciplines they could help to open up the scientific process to deeper public scrutiny.

I'd love to see Bob Lee weigh in here, but he won't. He'll demure because, well, the man is courage incarnate and

Heros don't talk about themselves.

Thanks for posting, Doc.

Let's set up one of those liberal hierarchy experiments with this. Put a group of topless female protestors - bonus points if some or all of them fall under one of the LGBTQIA letters - in front of the Ground Zero Mosque (or, since it doesn't exist, yet, whatever mosque is closest) and take bets on how long before Bloomberg "condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims." Because nipples are only safe when they aren't pointed at the prophet.

They're generally pretty bad. People on bath salts frequently wind up either 1) dead or 2) eating other people.