Re: Climate change funding
He may have got this from the older version of the Department of Labor's Employment outlook. The older one used to say that environmental science jobs would expand faster than average, with some estimates being very high. This, however, has dropped and this sector's growth is even with the average growth in jobs across all sectors. Hydrologists are now separated out and expectd to grow alot. However, these rates do not include conservation professionals, as this sector is expected to grow slower than average. Here are some average salaries according to DOL with expected growth. Environmental Scientist $51,000 average growth Environmental engineer $47,000 much faster than average growth Conservation Scientist $52,000 slower than average growth Petroleum Engineer $60,000 Declining Current Report here: http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos050.htm On Thu, October 25, 2007 1:15 pm, Mark Winterstein wrote: Paul, =20 I'm curious about your estimate about funding to create / maintain thousan= ds of new environmental science related jobs. Where did you get this estim= ate from? Is this anecdotal?=20 =20 Concerning the influence of opinions. If money is influencing their opinion= s then these are bad scientists. There is a methodology used in science to = help us remove our own bias from percieving the natural world and allow us = to understand the factors that control it. Data, and results from these stu= dies influence the opinions of scientists, not money. Because some scientis= ts might be greedy does not discredit the science behind the climate change= research; only more research can do that. =20 =20 I would think those that work for a vested private interest with a profit m= argin and investors to satisfy would have much more interest in allowing mo= ney to influence their opinons in research. I believe that has been shown w= ith the recent exposure of Exxon's interest in climate change research.=20 =20 Mark Winterstein=20 Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:06:11 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:= Re: Climate change funding To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Malcolm Mccal= lum wrote: if PHDs' activities were primarily profit driven, then they= would be found in corporations paying much better than the low pay= (often less than 45K/yr) found at most universities upon graduation. De= spite this, graduates in environmentally relevant fields seek academi= c posts viewed as most prestigious. These facts seem to fly in the face = of the entire idea that scientific opinions are in some way driven by th= e availability of funds. Malcolm, I'll try to explain why I think Glo= bal Warming has been a financial windfall issue for ecologists in the sens= e that it has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in government fu= nding to create / maintain thousands of new environmental science related= jobs. In recent decades our universities have been cranking out thousa= nds of new graduates in the environmental science related fields. Most of= these graduates, like you said, seek academic posts. Academic post= s =3D jobs in our government owned institutions (e.g. universities) age= ncies (EPA, NOAA, USFWS, etc). What determines the number of available e= nvironmental science related jobs in our government institutions agenc= ies? Answer: the availability of funds. What inspired Congress and fo= undations to award all this new funding in recent decades? Answer: a cons= ensus of scientific opinion that certain emerging environmental issues (e= .g. ozone depletion, global warming, etc) must be immediately addressed= (via funding researchers who work at the government institutions agenc= ies) to avert serious environmental consequences. In this way, it appea= rs to me that scientific opinions are substantially influenced by the ava= ilability of funds. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif. _ Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Caf=E9. Stop = by today. http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=3DTXT_TAGLM_Oc= tWLtagline= Malcolm L. McCallum Assistant Professor of Biology Editor Herpetological Conservation and Biology http://www.herpconbio.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Climate change funding
Dave's message reminded me of a comment from a friend that I didn't take to heart, and didn't apply yet: tell people that you earn nothing by giving talks on climate change, not for any of your work. Ok, I tell you know. If anybody wonders, Al Gore's cavalry, how he called us, the climate project presenters, does also not earn anything for our work, nor do I as researcher (I have no time to apply for funding right now). I realize now that that information might be really important, otherwise people might think that Al Gore just spends money (like big oil) to pay us off to spread his message. Maiken
Re: Climate change funding
Sorry, all, I shouldn't write too late or too early in the morning when my brain isn't quite turned on yet. All I wanted to say is that the discussion on the ecolog made me realize that it is important to note upfront who - if anybody - is funding work on climate change. That might help to reduce the assumption of some people that think we are just in it for the money. In my case - as a presenter of Al Gore's climate project - I ran into people who thought I give presentations because I get big bugs from my buddy Al. Now I realize it is important to clearly state that I am not getting any money for my work, and I realize that clear statements on financial issues might be important for any of us who work on climate change issues in their free time. Does that make more sense? Maiken I'm not sure that I understand the below paragraph. Maybe a sentence was deleted? On Fri, October 26, 2007 5:53 am, Maiken Winter wrote: Dave's message reminded me of a comment from a friend that I didn't take to heart, and didn't apply yet: tell people that you earn nothing by giving talks on climate change, not for any of your work. Ok, I tell you know. If anybody wonders, Al Gore's cavalry, how he called us, the climate project presenters, does also not earn anything for our work, nor do I as researcher (I have no time to apply for funding right now). I realize now that that information might be really important, otherwise people might think that Al Gore just spends money (like big oil) to pay us off to spread his message. Maiken Malcolm L. McCallum Assistant Professor of Biology Editor Herpetological Conservation and Biology http://www.herpconbio.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Climate change funding
Hmmm, What about the alternative hypothesis, Cherubini? What if the majority of scientific opinion is motivated by the collective perception, based on scientifically verifiable (and repeatable) analyses, that indicate a number of environmental problems require serious attention? I'm not getting a damn dime of that massive amount of research money you claim is skewing scientists' perceptions of problems, but I for the most part tend to side with the majority consensus that certain issues, such as climate change, habitat loss and degredation, over-exploitation of natural resources, etc., etc., are worthy of greater consideration by scientists as well as society at large. Not only am I not getting that money -- I'm not seeking it, either. So it appears, at least in my case, that your broad-brush hypothesis cannot fit all of the available observations. Given that, it may be that your hypothesis should be rejected or subjected to some revision -- namely, that some issues are seen as important by the scientific community because, well, they are important. When society makes decisions on how to best allocate its scientific resources, shouldn't those resources be primarily aimed toward those problems that appear most pressing? You seem to be saying that people are eager to give scientists money all the while knowing that we saboteurs will find ways to add discomfort to their lives. In my experience, people have never been all that willing to embrace prophets spreading the gospel of trial and tribulation. Given that the solutions to many of the environmental problems we face will require some (significant) sacrifice by society, an analysis of historical data suggest that it is not the best business model depeding on public support for further statements of gloom and doom is no the best for scientists. If said business model IS flawed, then the argument that scientist see problems beause of their funding potential is equally flawed. Dave -- David M. Lawrence| Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] USA | http: http://fuzzo.com -- We have met the enemy and he is us. -- Pogo No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku -- Richard Brautigan -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Cherubini Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 6:06 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: Climate change funding Malcolm Mccallum wrote: if PHDs' activities were primarily profit driven, then they would be found in corporations paying much better than the low pay (often less than 45K/yr) found at most universities upon graduation. Despite this, graduates in environmentally relevant fields seek academic posts viewed as most prestigious. These facts seem to fly in the face of the entire idea that scientific opinions are in some way driven by the availability of funds. Malcolm, I'll try to explain why I think Global Warming has been a financial windfall issue for ecologists in the sense that it has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in government funding to create / maintain thousands of new environmental science related jobs. In recent decades our universities have been cranking out thousands of new graduates in the environmental science related fields. Most of these graduates, like you said, seek academic posts. Academic posts = jobs in our government owned institutions (e.g. universities) agencies (EPA, NOAA, USFWS, etc). What determines the number of available environmental science related jobs in our government institutions agencies? Answer: the availability of funds. What inspired Congress and foundations to award all this new funding in recent decades? Answer: a consensus of scientific opinion that certain emerging environmental issues (e.g. ozone depletion, global warming, etc) must be immediately addressed (via funding researchers who work at the government institutions agencies) to avert serious environmental consequences. In this way, it appears to me that scientific opinions are substantially influenced by the availability of funds. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: Climate change funding
Hmmm, What about the alternative hypothesis, Cherubini? What if the majority of scientific opinion is motivated by the collective perception, based on scientifically verifiable (and repeatable) analyses, that indicate a number of environmental problems require serious attention? I'm not getting a damn dime of that massive amount of research money you claim is skewing scientists' perceptions of problems, but I for the most part tend to side with the majority consensus that certain issues, such as climate change, habitat loss and degredation, over-exploitation of natural resources, etc., etc., are worthy of greater consideration by scientists as well as society at large. Not only am I not getting that money -- I'm not seeking it, either. So it appears, at least in my case, that your broad-brush hypothesis cannot fit all of the available observations. Given that, it may be that your hypothesis should be rejected or subjected to some revision -- namely, that some issues are seen as important by the scientific community because, well, they are important. When society makes decisions on how to best allocate its scientific resources, shouldn't those resources be primarily aimed toward those problems that appear most pressing? You seem to be saying that people are eager to give scientists money all the while knowing that we saboteurs will find ways to add discomfort to their lives. In my experience, people have never been all that willing to embrace prophets spreading the gospel of trial and tribulation. Given that the solutions to many of the environmental problems we face will require some (significant) sacrifice by society, an analysis of historical data suggest that it is not the best business model depeding on public support for further statements of gloom and doom is no the best for scientists. If said business model IS flawed, then the argument that scientist see problems beause of their funding potential is equally flawed. Dave -- David M. Lawrence| Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] USA | http: http://fuzzo.com -- We have met the enemy and he is us. -- Pogo No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku -- Richard Brautigan -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Cherubini Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 6:06 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: Climate change funding Malcolm Mccallum wrote: if PHDs' activities were primarily profit driven, then they would be found in corporations paying much better than the low pay (often less than 45K/yr) found at most universities upon graduation. Despite this, graduates in environmentally relevant fields seek academic posts viewed as most prestigious. These facts seem to fly in the face of the entire idea that scientific opinions are in some way driven by the availability of funds. Malcolm, I'll try to explain why I think Global Warming has been a financial windfall issue for ecologists in the sense that it has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in government funding to create / maintain thousands of new environmental science related jobs. In recent decades our universities have been cranking out thousands of new graduates in the environmental science related fields. Most of these graduates, like you said, seek academic posts. Academic posts = jobs in our government owned institutions (e.g. universities) agencies (EPA, NOAA, USFWS, etc). What determines the number of available environmental science related jobs in our government institutions agencies? Answer: the availability of funds. What inspired Congress and foundations to award all this new funding in recent decades? Answer: a consensus of scientific opinion that certain emerging environmental issues (e.g. ozone depletion, global warming, etc) must be immediately addressed (via funding researchers who work at the government institutions agencies) to avert serious environmental consequences. In this way, it appears to me that scientific opinions are substantially influenced by the availability of funds. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: Climate change funding
I'm not getting a damn dime of that massive amount of research money you= claim is skewing scientists' perceptions of problems, but I for the most = part tend to side with the majority consensus that certain issues, such as= climate change, habitat loss and degredation, over-exploitation of natural= resources, etc., etc., are worthy of greater consideration by scientists = as well as society at large. I wonder if most environmental scientists aren't also in this position. =20 =20 Climate change projects often divert money from funding pools that would no= rmally support research in their areas of expertise. In some cases, enviro= nmental scientists supporting climate change research are actually suportin= g a DECREASE in their funding. =20 I would like to see data that actually breaks down these supposed increases= in the total funding pool for environmental institutions. Are those funds= actually increasing (and for whom and how many) or has the available pool = simply been refocused? =20 Perhaps the funding dynamics here actually demonstrate professional altruis= m rather than greed.=
Re: Climate change funding
How many of these problems were exposed by corporations? How many problems of these sorts were identified by businesses and then dealt with? I'ld love to know! smoking-cancer connection and nicotine addiction match stick factory health problems PCBs ozone layer climate change over fishing over hunting deforestation unsafe working conditions unhealthy alcohol consumption sugar-tooth decay ballast water carrying invasive species lead contamination of soil, water and children's health DDT and other pesticides/herbicides in human and environmental health radio active radium in watch faces washing hands before returning to work cocain in coca cola patent medicines (heck this stuff is back on the market!!) black lung These are just off the top of my head, I suspect they were all identified by outside parties and denied by the concerned producer. Thanks for the feedback! Malcolm McCallum On Thu, October 25, 2007 12:46 am, David M. Lawrence wrote: Hmmm, What about the alternative hypothesis, Cherubini? What if the majority of scientific opinion is motivated by the collective perception, based on scientifically verifiable (and repeatable) analyses, that indicate a number of environmental problems require serious attention? I'm not getting a damn dime of that massive amount of research money you claim is skewing scientists' perceptions of problems, but I for the most part tend to side with the majority consensus that certain issues, such as climate change, habitat loss and degredation, over-exploitation of natural resources, etc., etc., are worthy of greater consideration by scientists as well as society at large. Not only am I not getting that money -- I'm not seeking it, either. So it appears, at least in my case, that your broad-brush hypothesis cannot fit all of the available observations. Given that, it may be that your hypothesis should be rejected or subjected to some revision -- namely, that some issues are seen as important by the scientific community because, well, they are important. When society makes decisions on how to best allocate its scientific resources, shouldn't those resources be primarily aimed toward those problems that appear most pressing? You seem to be saying that people are eager to give scientists money all the while knowing that we saboteurs will find ways to add discomfort to their lives. In my experience, people have never been all that willing to embrace prophets spreading the gospel of trial and tribulation. Given that the solutions to many of the environmental problems we face will require some (significant) sacrifice by society, an analysis of historical data suggest that it is not the best business model depeding on public support for further statements of gloom and doom is no the best for scientists. If said business model IS flawed, then the argument that scientist see problems beause of their funding potential is equally flawed. Dave -- David M. Lawrence| Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] USA | http: http://fuzzo.com -- We have met the enemy and he is us. -- Pogo No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku -- Richard Brautigan -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Cherubini Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 6:06 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: Climate change funding Malcolm Mccallum wrote: if PHDs' activities were primarily profit driven, then they would be found in corporations paying much better than the low pay (often less than 45K/yr) found at most universities upon graduation. Despite this, graduates in environmentally relevant fields seek academic posts viewed as most prestigious. These facts seem to fly in the face of the entire idea that scientific opinions are in some way driven by the availability of funds. Malcolm, I'll try to explain why I think Global Warming has been a financial windfall issue for ecologists in the sense that it has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in government funding to create / maintain thousands of new environmental science related jobs. In recent decades our universities have been cranking out thousands of new graduates in the environmental science related fields. Most of these graduates, like you said, seek academic posts. Academic posts = jobs in our government owned institutions (e.g. universities) agencies (EPA, NOAA, USFWS, etc). What determines the number of available environmental science related jobs in our government institutions agencies? Answer: the availability of funds. What inspired Congress and foundations to award all this new funding in recent decades? Answer: a consensus of scientific
Re: Climate change funding
Paul, The NSF grant application does not require any statement about What the results should be or you'll take my money away. The NSF funding rate is low - last I heard 15-20% of all applications get any money at all, and many get less than requested. So where's the windfall? Since when are universities government institutions? State schools are funded by the individual states. Private universities are self funded. Grant money goes towards research expenses, not salaries. Salary to cover summer work may be requested, and salary money for post-docs, graduate students, and sometimes undergrads can be requested. It may surprise you, but most of us don't get paid for the summer (unless we teach summer school). We are only paid for the regular academic year. Even summer pay is on a per course basis much like adjunct pay. So we essentially do our field work gratis. Contrary to your statement, many of those graduate students will, unfortunately, not find jobs with those government institutions. Academic positions are few and far between. The competition is fierce for spots in the top schools, and is nothing to sneeze at even in the smaller private schools. Since when is USFW cranking out new positions? Seems like many of these organizations are feeling the budget crunch in terms of cuts in positions. So again I ask, Where's the windfall? I guess the wind just isn't blowing my way. Liane Cochran-Stafira At 12:46 AM 10/25/2007, David M. Lawrence wrote: Hmmm, What about the alternative hypothesis, Cherubini? What if the majority of scientific opinion is motivated by the collective perception, based on scientifically verifiable (and repeatable) analyses, that indicate a number of environmental problems require serious attention? I'm not getting a damn dime of that massive amount of research money you claim is skewing scientists' perceptions of problems, but I for the most part tend to side with the majority consensus that certain issues, such as climate change, habitat loss and degredation, over-exploitation of natural resources, etc., etc., are worthy of greater consideration by scientists as well as society at large. Not only am I not getting that money -- I'm not seeking it, either. So it appears, at least in my case, that your broad-brush hypothesis cannot fit all of the available observations. Given that, it may be that your hypothesis should be rejected or subjected to some revision -- namely, that some issues are seen as important by the scientific community because, well, they are important. When society makes decisions on how to best allocate its scientific resources, shouldn't those resources be primarily aimed toward those problems that appear most pressing? You seem to be saying that people are eager to give scientists money all the while knowing that we saboteurs will find ways to add discomfort to their lives. In my experience, people have never been all that willing to embrace prophets spreading the gospel of trial and tribulation. Given that the solutions to many of the environmental problems we face will require some (significant) sacrifice by society, an analysis of historical data suggest that it is not the best business model depeding on public support for further statements of gloom and doom is no the best for scientists. If said business model IS flawed, then the argument that scientist see problems beause of their funding potential is equally flawed. Dave -- David M. Lawrence| Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] USA | http: http://fuzzo.com -- We have met the enemy and he is us. -- Pogo No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku -- Richard Brautigan -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Cherubini Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 6:06 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: Climate change funding Malcolm Mccallum wrote: if PHDs' activities were primarily profit driven, then they would be found in corporations paying much better than the low pay (often less than 45K/yr) found at most universities upon graduation. Despite this, graduates in environmentally relevant fields seek academic posts viewed as most prestigious. These facts seem to fly in the face of the entire idea that scientific opinions are in some way driven by the availability of funds. Malcolm, I'll try to explain why I think Global Warming has been a financial windfall issue for ecologists in the sense that it has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in government funding to create / maintain thousands of new environmental science related jobs. In recent decades our universities have been cranking out thousands of new graduates
Re: Climate change funding
Paul, =20 I'm curious about your estimate about funding to create / maintain thousan= ds of new environmental science related jobs. Where did you get this estim= ate from? Is this anecdotal?=20 =20 Concerning the influence of opinions. If money is influencing their opinion= s then these are bad scientists. There is a methodology used in science to = help us remove our own bias from percieving the natural world and allow us = to understand the factors that control it. Data, and results from these stu= dies influence the opinions of scientists, not money. Because some scientis= ts might be greedy does not discredit the science behind the climate change= research; only more research can do that. =20 =20 I would think those that work for a vested private interest with a profit m= argin and investors to satisfy would have much more interest in allowing mo= ney to influence their opinons in research. I believe that has been shown w= ith the recent exposure of Exxon's interest in climate change research.=20 =20 Mark Winterstein=20 Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:06:11 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:= Re: Climate change funding To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Malcolm Mccal= lum wrote: if PHDs' activities were primarily profit driven, then they= would be found in corporations paying much better than the low pay= (often less than 45K/yr) found at most universities upon graduation. De= spite this, graduates in environmentally relevant fields seek academi= c posts viewed as most prestigious. These facts seem to fly in the face = of the entire idea that scientific opinions are in some way driven by th= e availability of funds. Malcolm, I'll try to explain why I think Glo= bal Warming has been a financial windfall issue for ecologists in the sens= e that it has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in government fu= nding to create / maintain thousands of new environmental science related= jobs. In recent decades our universities have been cranking out thousa= nds of new graduates in the environmental science related fields. Most of= these graduates, like you said, seek academic posts. Academic post= s =3D jobs in our government owned institutions (e.g. universities) age= ncies (EPA, NOAA, USFWS, etc). What determines the number of available e= nvironmental science related jobs in our government institutions agenc= ies? Answer: the availability of funds. What inspired Congress and fo= undations to award all this new funding in recent decades? Answer: a cons= ensus of scientific opinion that certain emerging environmental issues (e= .g. ozone depletion, global warming, etc) must be immediately addressed= (via funding researchers who work at the government institutions agenc= ies) to avert serious environmental consequences. In this way, it appea= rs to me that scientific opinions are substantially influenced by the ava= ilability of funds. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif. _ Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Caf=E9. Stop = by today. http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=3DTXT_TAGLM_Oc= tWLtagline=
Re: Climate change funding
Malcolm Mccallum wrote: if PHDs' activities were primarily profit driven, then they would be found in corporations paying much better than the low pay (often less than 45K/yr) found at most universities upon graduation. Despite this, graduates in environmentally relevant fields seek academic posts viewed as most prestigious. These facts seem to fly in the face of the entire idea that scientific opinions are in some way driven by the availability of funds. Malcolm, I'll try to explain why I think Global Warming has been a financial windfall issue for ecologists in the sense that it has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in government funding to create / maintain thousands of new environmental science related jobs. In recent decades our universities have been cranking out thousands of new graduates in the environmental science related fields. Most of these graduates, like you said, seek academic posts. Academic posts = jobs in our government owned institutions (e.g. universities) agencies (EPA, NOAA, USFWS, etc). What determines the number of available environmental science related jobs in our government institutions agencies? Answer: the availability of funds. What inspired Congress and foundations to award all this new funding in recent decades? Answer: a consensus of scientific opinion that certain emerging environmental issues (e.g. ozone depletion, global warming, etc) must be immediately addressed (via funding researchers who work at the government institutions agencies) to avert serious environmental consequences. In this way, it appears to me that scientific opinions are substantially influenced by the availability of funds. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: Climate change funding
Hi Kelly, I don't think the article had an unbiased view on the issue of funding - to compare funding that people receive from oil and gas companies with funding that researchers receive after a peer reviewed process of research proposals is like comparing apples with oranges. Of course many researchers these days like to focus on climate change, because it is horribly hard these days to receive any funding, and many people's salary completely rely on external funding. We need to trust that those projects that do get funded will indeed help to better understand issues that are of critical importance for solving the climate crisis. Of course not all funded projects always deserve the amount of funding they receive, that's true for all areas of research, but all in all, I trust scientists do the best they can for their own career sake, and reviewers do the best they can to weed out those proposals that do not deserve funding. Even if for some scientists the motivation for climate change related research were indeed just the money and the fame, at least they do still help solve the crisis, or at least don't stand in its way; whereas that cannot be said for those people funded by oil companies. Luckily, the link is off the California webpage. Maiken
Re: Climate change funding
The problem with these financial arguements is that the basic assumption that scientists are primarily profit driven is invalid. In fact, universities found a long time ago that faculty will take a lower paying post if there is stronger institutional support for research by way of facilities and graduate programs. Furthermore, if PHDs' activities were primarily profit driven, then they would be found in corporations paying much better than the low pay (often less than 45K/yr) found at most universities upon graduation, not to mention the even lower pay for postdocs. Despite this, graduates in environmentally relevant fields do not, in general, seek the high paying corporate jobs, but instead seek the academic posts viewed as most prestigious. These facts seem to fly in the face of the entire idea that scientific opinions are in some way driven by the availability of funds. Especially considering that the vast majority of research done in these areas involve no public funds, but rather the finances of the scientists doing the research and possibly a few tidbits from their home institution. NOTICE I AM NOT SAYING THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT MONEY, ONLY THAT IT ISN'T FIRST ON THEIR LIST! But, suggesting that somehow there is all this money around for us to roll in is completely ludicrous. The entire budget devoted to all environmental research pales in comparison to the funds invested in oil exploration and refining, damage control campaigns to spread misinformation, and the interconnected auto industry that has resisted shifts from oil based to electric vehicles, etc. If we invested half of the budget for one fighter jet into environmental problems, there would be great strides felt immediately. Instead, we are too busy blowing things up and pretending the issues at hand will just go away. After-all, something happening 50-60 yrs from now will not involve most corporate and political leaders because most will be dead by then. So why should they care? Selfish attitudes and selfish motives beget selfish actions. There is a reason why they say academics work for the greater good and that businessmen are in it for the money. Malcolm McCallum On Tue, October 23, 2007 5:40 am, Maiken Winter wrote: Hi Kelly, I don't think the article had an unbiased view on the issue of funding - to compare funding that people receive from oil and gas companies with funding that researchers receive after a peer reviewed process of research proposals is like comparing apples with oranges. Of course many researchers these days like to focus on climate change, because it is horribly hard these days to receive any funding, and many people's salary completely rely on external funding. We need to trust that those projects that do get funded will indeed help to better understand issues that are of critical importance for solving the climate crisis. Of course not all funded projects always deserve the amount of funding they receive, that's true for all areas of research, but all in all, I trust scientists do the best they can for their own career sake, and reviewers do the best they can to weed out those proposals that do not deserve funding. Even if for some scientists the motivation for climate change related research were indeed just the money and the fame, at least they do still help solve the crisis, or at least don't stand in its way; whereas that cannot be said for those people funded by oil companies. Luckily, the link is off the California webpage. Maiken Malcolm L. McCallum Assistant Professor of Biology Editor Herpetological Conservation and Biology http://www.herpconbio.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Climate change funding
RE: George C. Marshall Institute funding paper With due respect, I see no problem with a scientist or private citizen calling for more research, further exploration and a clear, unbiased view of the facts in a given situation. Kelly, your scoff that the Institute didn't use any peer-reviewed sources makes little sense to me, given the paper's topic. Seems that the author looked at grant sources over the past few years, grant applicants, and dollar amounts. With respect, I would like to know which peer-reviewed sources you would have liked him to use? Aside from the Foundation Center and Guidestar, I don't know of any. The author of this paper is asking very relevant questions, especially since climate change science will form the foundation of every policy we're to make for the foreseeable future: -- Are grant funders looking for specific results from those they award grants to? -- Do the funders ever refuse grants if they don't like the topic or hypothesis or the grant-seeker? (I would have to say YES they do.) -- How are internal and external reviews conducted? These are all fundamental Quality Assurance questions, designed to ensure that the researcher is posing a legitimate hypothesis and will use valid techniques to obtain a truthful result, regardless of outcome. Why is it that those who simply seek more information about climate change (including a look at climate history over the millenia) are labelled as deniers and contrarians? There is an emotional zeal with which they are publicly denounced, and any scientist with a differing hypothesis is excommunicated and shunned. If science can't be furthered by open, honest, logical debate and respectful DISCUSSION, then we might as well be living on a flat planet in the middle of the universe, carried along on the back of a celestial turtle. Respectfully, Kelly Stettner, Director Black River Action Team (BRAT) 45 Coolidge Road Springfield, VT 05156 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.blackriveractionteam.org ~Making ripples on the Black River since 2000! ~ __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
