Hiding The Good News ... Why?

Daleandee

Final Approach
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
6,293
Display Name

Display name:
Dale Andee
Pretty stunning news and the reason for hiding it is pretty clear to folks with a brain ...

"Despite the fact that Superior commissioned and paid for the studies, none of the three towns released the results. Superior resident Brad Walker filed a freedom of information request to get the reports and passed them along to AVweb."

 
My frustration with some scientific research funding is that negative results such as this are typically not fodder for further funding. Now if the results showed issues, grant writers would get their proposed research funded. As a result, researchers are rewarded for finding problems and disincentivized for confirming that all is well. I suppose it makes sense, but the money goes to the sensationalists and not the other side of the arguments. This is true at least on the environmental front. (Been working on my PhD since Fall ‘22 and I see it clearly now.)
 
My frustration with some scientific research funding is that negative results such as this are typically not fodder for further funding. Now if the results showed issues, grant writers would get their proposed research funded. As a result, researchers are rewarded for finding problems and disincentivized for confirming that all is well. I suppose it makes sense, but the money goes to the sensationalists and not the other side of the arguments. This is true at least on the environmental front. (Been working on my PhD since Fall ‘22 and I see it clearly now.)
Good point.
 
W
Pretty stunning news and the reason for hiding it is pretty clear to folks with a brain ...

"Despite the fact that Superior commissioned and paid for the studies, none of the three towns released the results. Superior resident Brad Walker filed a freedom of information request to get the reports and passed them along to AVweb."

Want more fun? Check out Section 6

 
will we have to call you Dr. 455 BU ?

Ha! Only if I finish!! Working a full-time job, full time graduate course load, and research was probably not good for my health. Went to part-time this semester and thought about quitting. I’ll probably retire and keep doing the degree part-time (or not - might just fly more instead of either).
 
This is a good example of why some people aren't "trusting the science" these days. It's not the science per-se that's the problem it's the selective filtering of what gets promoted in the media and what gets buried.
 
This is a good example of why some people aren't "trusting the science" these days. It's not the science per-se that's the problem it's the selective filtering of what gets promoted in the media and what gets buried.

Yes, but it’s also selective filtering of what science gets funded. That creates bias in the science itself, not just reporting.
 
They only publish the studies that go their way. the A web article will probably not be seen by many of the public.
 
Yes, but it’s also selective filtering of what science gets funded. That creates bias in the science itself, not just reporting.

This is true. Look at the recent research dollars recently made available for PFAS chemistry and its environmental fate and transport.

I exaggerate a bit, but every chemical with a fluorine atom is now being looked at to determine that it’s prevalent in the environment and potentially “bad”. Easy money for researchers who have career ladders to climb and mortgages to pay. If one of them determines that one molecule is safe, the research ends. That’s not financially viable.

If PFAS is bad, I’m probably done-for. I probably ingested loads of AFFF firefighting foam in my 20’s and early 30’s. Now add the lawyers to start pulling on the money-nipple because ____ disease is linked to PFAS.

Somebody’s gotta pay for research and lawsuits, and that’s taxpayers and consumers, and that’s an unsustainable economic model. If the economy is less important than what I grew up believing it was, then ….
 
My frustration with some scientific research funding is that negative results such as this are typically not fodder for further funding. Now if the results showed issues, grant writers would get their proposed research funded. As a result, researchers are rewarded for finding problems and disincentivized for confirming that all is well. I suppose it makes sense, but the money goes to the sensationalists and not the other side of the arguments. This is true at least on the environmental front. (Been working on my PhD since Fall ‘22 and I see it clearly now.)
You hit the nail on the head. I discovered this as well during my doctoral research. Medical funding operates much the same when funded by the NIH. It was a driving factor in my move away from academia and in to private practice.
 
Last edited:
You hit the nail on the head. I discovered this as well during my doctoral research. Medical funding operates much the same when funded by the NIH. It was a driving factor in my move away from academia and in to private practice.
My daughter majored in bio chemistry at state with the intent of pursuing a medical career. The faculty advisor strongly pushed research. They would run down the medical school path as not being worthy. I explained what I felt were the facts about academic research. That as an academic, you were there to generate grant money. Fortunately, my daughter agreed with me and is now in medical school.
 
Just in case anyone missed an earlier attempt by these scoundrels with an agenda to hide some good news a year and a half ago:

"The Mercury News of San Jose, California, reported that a study conducted by Santa Clara County found that soil samples taken at Reid-Hillview of Santa Clara County Airport contained lead levels below local, state, or federal safety limits."

"The soil report was released to the news organization on June 8 only “after a public records request asking for the study’s results went unanswered for weeks,” according to the newspaper."

 
Back
Top