GuerraEarth

Who among adult reasoning men or women would believe this premise? Are we all turned to geese?

Snowden for President would be a fine thing.

http://www.helioviewer.org -and- http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/?type=current

--I had to re-choose my co-founder because I found this to be an exact fit of my situation. The person with the MBA felt entitled to everything but would not do any of the hardcore work involved. In fact, at Columbia U, I know tonnes of MBA students and they all have the same characteristic described in Dalton's article.

$$$ glisten in their irises whenever they talk about startups. For me, someone who has no MBA and would not get an MBA if it were the only academic degree on the planet, a startup is about the 24/7 work involved to create and nurture a good, innovative, useful and interesting toy that can do big things for other people. But that is why in the world, we need a million flowers blooming. People are supposed to be different. Variety is good. But as an initial co-founder, someone with an MBA--chances are--isn't the best choice, according to my experience most humble. : )

Like all other sectors, scientific research can get inbred and peer review corrupted as a mechanism. It's similar to a character/job/performance reference: "We want to hear what other people say about you," can be problematic when the folks talking are untrustworthy--yet they wield credentials imparting trustworthiness. Peer review only worked when the majority of peers were rock-solid good scientists. (when there were fewer scientists, with personal reputations and the discoveries to back up their reputations) Wouldn't it be great if Pierre Curie, Darwin or Tesla were doing peer reviews? (or men/women of similar caliber)

At leading research schools (they aren't all universities), falsification of data exists at the student and professorial level.

Funding is definitely cut at NASA, whereas "sexy" research funding is increasing. We need excellent researchers across all areas of expertise. And we need increased accountability and transparency. And more funding.

I argue that what is most needed is increased scientific literacy at the level of political leadership and the general population so that findings can be accessible/understood/evaluated on a more concrete level by all.

Coming pathogen shifts associated with climate change, and extreme weather events, etc. alarm people. And people want to be able to trust science and to trust science reporting.

thank you for grabbing alternative. here is the reuters again.