4 ms·
>I say that’s also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done
by weberer 4y ago
>I say that’s also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would he better in some other state. If you don’t publish such a result, it seems to me you’re not giving scientific advice. You’re being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don’t publish it at all. That’s not giving scientific advice.
We saw this just recently when the EU tried to hide a study that showed piracy actually increased game sales. I wonder what other studies are being suppressed because they don't fit the narrative.
https://www.ghacks.net/2017/09/22/inconvenient-eu-piracy-study-kept-hidden-for-years/ https://www.ghacks.net/2017/09/22/inconvenient-eu-piracy-stu...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Waterluvian 4y agoI love that observation. Science without transparency is just politics.
- nextos 4y ago> I wonder what other studies are being suppressed because they don't fit the narrative In Nature / Science / Cell, your article submissions are likely to be rejected if they go against the ideas supported by highly cited researchers in your particular subfield, as these will be the reviewers. Just see what happened in case of e.g. Alzheimer's disease [1]. Eventually, new ideas push through, but it takes too long due to the issue I mentioned above. [1] https://www.statnews.com/2019/06/25/alzheimers-cabal-thwarted-progress-toward-cure https://www.statnews.com/2019/06/25/alzheimers-cabal-thwarte...