you have no idea how the peer review system works. try here for a start http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
The critical part is with NIH, NIMH AAS, or other granting agencies, both public and private, it depends on blind peer review. In other words you have no idea who is applying for the grant as all identifying information is removed from the materials. I've served on a few peer review panels, one for a conference, for a journal and for a NIMH grant panel. They all worked the same. The best I could discern as to identity was on the journal article, and that was because the person kept citing himself. Basically Sam if you don't know how a system works don't try to fake it. On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: > > If you want to work in the industry you need grants and peers. > > . > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 9:20 AM, GMoney <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I roundly reject that. If you want to be a scientist, you have to do good > > research. Form logical hypotheses, construct valid tests, form reasoned > > conclusions that follow from the results. > > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Science is very politicized now. > > > If you want to earn a living you need to be a Democrat or pretend to > be > > > one. > > > > > > , > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 8:27 AM, GMoney <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Until all our scientists are robots instead of humans, there will > > always > > > be > > > > a political element to science. But if you are looking for your LEAST > > > > political arena, science is about the best you'll get. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Larry C. Lyons < > [email protected] > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Very true. Unfortunately its no longer the case. in the 70's the > > > majority > > > > > of scientists (56 > > > > > 56%) employed in the US were Republican. In the Pew Trust Survey > of a > > > > > couple of years ago, less than 6% now label themselves as > Republican. > > > > Given > > > > > the hostility of the party to science in general and to several > > > > fundamental > > > > > precepts of science in general, specifically evolution, I don't > think > > > > that > > > > > will change any time soon, much to the Republican Party's > detriment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Scott Stewart < > > > [email protected] > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with the sentiment that science shouldn't be politicized. > > It > > > > > > shouldn't be partisan at all (bi or otherwise) it needs to be > above > > > the > > > > > > stupidity that is partisan politics. > > > > > > On Aug 31, 2013 1:57 PM, "Larry C. Lyons" <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/scientists_hate_the_gop_for_a_reason/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > presented without a comment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:366848 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
