Hacker News Reader

Comment by Oletros | Hacker News Reader

> "Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), who questions the link between human activity and climate change and has several former aides now working for Pruitt, said in an interview earlier this year that under the new administration, “They’re going to have to start dealing with science and not rigged science” at EPA.:

Rigged science? What rigged science?

> "“The EPA routinely stacks this board with friendly scientists who receive millions of dollars in grants from the federal government,” Smith said at the time. “The conflict of interest here is clear.”"

This coming from Lamar Smith?

> This seems like a good move for science

You must be joking. Or you think that science is what Lamar Smith thinks it is science, get ride of any fact, and put conclusions and then look at anything that can be a proof for those conclusions.

What they are doing is not science

View on HN

I'm of the impression that they want to replace government-backed science with commerce-backed science here.

I think they have the right idea; everone knows following the market is a moral imperative, that smoking is attractive and you are #healthyatanysize.

Obviously those leacherous government scientists should be put out of a job. They are harming commerce and therewith the proletariat. They gotta go!

If government-backed science is science, then commerce-backed science is science too.

Unless you're suggestion that scientists - as humans = can fall prey to the same corruption and motivations that anyone else can. If that is the case, are you suggesting that government-backed scientists are above human motivations?

I'm suggesting it is an odd assumption that government-backed science would be less prone to conflicts of interest than commerce-/corporate-backed science.

I find it hard to understand the conflict of interest with government-backed science. Scientist A gets a grant to do research, spends it on research and reasonable salaries for PhD's, and goes on to join the EPA board. So what?

It only becomes a conflict of interest if they then start allocating funds to their friends or to themselves, but that's almost too obvious. What does them having previously received grants have to do with anything? Why would they then be more corruptable than private sector scientists?

At least in the case of government-backed science, the research goals are generally aligned with government interests. I don't see how that's sinister in the general case.

On the other hand, it seems much easier to find dark motives in research conducted by corporations. For instance, why would you publish research that is bad for your company?

What am I missing here?

> At least in the case of government-backed science, the research goals are generally aligned with government interests.

Personally, I prefer science to be aligned with finding truth and understanding, not with any particular group's interests.

Sadly truth and understanding do not have a budget to pay scientists. So funding must flow from somewhere...

Indeed, a group that provides funding might be aligned with truth and progress, but that's just one of the many options and often there are many conflicting values and incentives at play.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com