|
The Scientist: NewsBlog:
EPA whistleblower sues university
Posted by Andrea Gawrylewski [Entry posted at 21st April 2008 09:32 PM GMT]
Rate this article
Return to Top comment: sludge cake by bruce j. edmonds III [Comment posted 2008-04-24 04:34:12] I would be very interested to see both sets of data...and to find out if any other sewer sludge cake data was taken during low moisture events...and if that lowers toxic levels...would be most interesting...this article brings up a good point aboot grant funding...if a researcher is being funded by say a certain university, or mega-corp, and they have an agenda aboot something, hidden or otherwise...what can be the logical outcome...example researchers in 1964 issued their famous report "that smokes are not good for your lungs." yet @ the same time big companies that sold smokes had their scientists claim smoking actually was a good thing...the point is funding of research projects now has to be totally looked at when reading a research article...published or unpublished... Return to Top comment: Not specifically familiar, but I have no doubts by Ellen Hunt [Comment posted 2008-04-22 13:52:31] There is an assumption in sciences today that if investigators get money from grants then the money and the investigation is pretty much by definition clean. The assumption is that grants do not give incentive to falsify data, twist results, or withold important information.
This is absolutely false today if it ever was true. Soros said that freedom requires alternatives. For academics receiving grants there are all too often no alternatives to speak of. At this point, although it is without a formal study (which study would be very difficult to conduct) I believe that there is more misconduct from grant based research than there is from industrially funded research. I am quite certain that university chancellors, boards of regents provosts and academic deans are specifically selected from among those that willingly turn a blind eye to misconduct in favor of money. Demonstrating the blind eye is the primary (but secret) qualification for such positions. There is so much money washing around the system it is phenomenal. Single universities are receiving half a billion to 1 billion dollars in a year all told. The impact of an academic scandal has huge fiscal impact. It is time to clean this up. It won't be pretty, but it must be done, or science is going to lose what respect it has with the public. We must face the fact that our pet presumptions about ourselves are now false. Return to Top comment: Georgia sludge by Dr. Richard Lasker [Comment posted 2008-04-22 12:15:30] I agree 100% with David Lewis. Our work in Georgia from the mid 90s until 2000 showed us the exact same results and we cautioned many growers there not to "sludge" their farms regardless of the incentives. They insisted that State of Georgia assured them it was all safe and had plenty of test data, from UGA, to prove it. I was painted as the "bad-guy" some "hippie tree-hugger."
Even though we had analytical data showing otherwise. Nice to see some vindication. Comment on this blog |