I am afraid it goes much deeper than that, Erik. The issue is not as much the source of the funding, although that plays a minor part, as it is the way funding is awarded. There are plenty of "adjusted" results in government funded research too. The motivation for results is to acquire additional funding, and not to achieve honest results. I would bet that attitude exists more in government funded projects than in privately funded projects. What has to be done is to remove results from funding - independantly of where the funding comes from. From: "erikhansen@thebluezone.net" <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 9:44 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Science editorial in the Chronicle
Seems the biggest conflict is between industry scientists and independent scientists. I doubt he is talking about obscure stellar evolution theory, and yes there are many thoughts about dino extinction but not that they roamed the earth thousands of years ago, that would be millions. The 2 biggest areas seem to be evolution and climate science. Accusations that only those working for the extraction industry are being objective and not influenced by money. We see massive ad campaigns to contradict scientists that do not have the budget for advertisement. Seems industry employs attorneys to thwart objectivity, another thing scientist working under government grants lack.
We need for government to take back its role in funding research, privately funded science is the problem. Take the drug industry, we need a new generation of antibiotics, yet 80% of the antibiotics are used and developed on farm animals to increase "yield" because that is where the money is. "First thing is to get the facts straight then you can distort them to prove your point" Mark Twain