I only brought it up because the other side claiming the Bush admin is doing this was talked about here.
On 4/12/06, Kevin Graeme wrote: > This is completely independent of the article, but the scientific > community is cut-throat when it comes to radical ideas. It's part of > the vetting process. Just taking a stance as a scientist doesn't make > the science behind it worth funding. > > Everyone likes the idea of making a name for themselves by "shaking > things up", but doing so is a big risk because with everyone wanting > to shake things up, there's a lot of shoddy science being done. And > that gets shut down quick, simply because there's a lot of people that > like to take funding and run with it to try and make a name for > themselves. And the more radical, the bigger the headlines, so glamor > seekers get shut down fast if their science doesn't prove itself right > away. > > Regarding this article, there's no way to know if they were shut down > because their science was bad or if they were shut out just because > the establishment closed ranks. I don't know. I do know though that > it's human nature to make a fuss when you feel slighted, and that may > or may not be all this is. > > Do you want any nutball with a theory and tenuous methods to prove it > getting funding? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:203932 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
