Somewhat O/T - Scientific integrity and validity of research

[mamamax]

I dont know about global warming..... but it tends to get pretty hot here

Ballet Mom, I dont agree with you about the nusrses deciding what is covered. My insurance (Cigna) updates a position paper every year (written by a physician, I believe) discussing scoliosis; what's covered, whats not, why, the state of the science, etc. It is pretty interesting reading

regarding the "braist conspiracy"; the only good case I saw for that was made by the poster on the other forum where she noted that they included curves of only 25 degrees and up. Braist changed their protocol (in response to this?)

Was reviewing that Cigna link last evening. I don't see an author and suspect it may have been composed by a committee of actuaries, or something. I did note at least one reference to a flawed bracing study and wonder who decides which references are to be used in compiling such insurance statements that ultimately effect health care.

The nursing thing - there are levels of training (BSN-PhD and MS-PhD) which: Engage in and lead collaborative research teams; and Influence health science agenda-setting and policy initiatives.

At the end of the day, once again - politics and money: rule

Nursing Reference:
http://www.nursing.arizona.edu/Doctoral.htm

[concerned dad]

I noticed that as well.
The previous years version did have the doctors name and contact info.

[Ballet Mom]

University of Iowa does have a PhD nursing program. And, in fact, Lori Dolan's title is Lori Dolan, RN, PhD.

http://www.nursing.uiowa.edu/academi.../phd/index.htm

And I'm pretty sure all the PhD nurses that are graduating from these programs aren't going to be changing bedpans. I believe they will be deliberately trying to take a major role in influencing medical care with their research studies, that is the whole point of these degrees. Since they fill many of the spots in these insurance companies, especially in the utilization management areas (which is the function that I meant made those decisions) the PhD nursing programs are certainly a route the insurance companies would take to study whether they want to fund bracing or not.

[Ballet Mom]

Was reviewing that Cigna link last evening. I don't see an author and suspect it may have been composed by a committee of actuaries, or something. I did note at least one reference to a flawed bracing study and wonder who decides which references are to be used in compiling such insurance statements that ultimately effect health care.

I agree Mamamax, there's nothing in that article that looks like you had to have an MD to write it.

[Pooka1]

I'm not sure why PhDs in nursing would be preferable or not preferable to MDs or PhDs in medicine (i.e., joint PhD-Md) to design certain studies or staff certain positions in insurance companies.

What I thought was being alluded to was yet another worldwide conspiracy of putting in nurses who are NOT qualified to make any treatment decision by themselves in order to skew the insurance payments towards some nefarious and predetermined endpoint.

I mean we were already dealing with the other "conspiracy" about how a handful of UK climatologists are running a worldwide conspiracy to dupe the world on AGW.

Just a few two many conspiracies it seems...

[concerned dad]

... a handful of UK climatologists ...

This is not some random handful of climatologists. These are the MOST influential scientists at the CENTER of the research. They were the gatekeepers in determining what could be published. They are the LEAD authors of various chapters of the IPCC report.

It is obvious to me that they allowed their scientific endeavors to be biased by personal beliefs.

The sad thing is this: Their results may be correct. But their refusal to follow the scientific method (with regard to disclosing their methods and data in a manner that would allow someone to test and replicate their results) may set the science back years. (and give ALL scientists a black eye).

[Pooka1]

This is not some random handful of climatologists. These are the MOST influential scientists at the CENTER of the research. They were the gatekeepers in determining what could be published. They are the LEAD authors of various chapters of the IPCC report.

It is obvious to me that they allowed their scientific endeavors to be biased by personal beliefs.

The sad thing is this: Their results may be correct. But their refusal to follow the scientific method (with regard to disclosing their methods and data in a manner that would allow someone to test and replicate their results) may set the science back years. (and give ALL scientists a black eye).

I am not convinced there was anything untoward but will look for how things fall out.

Blocking access to code until it is published is one thing. Blocking it after it is published is another. Even FOIA requests can't be successful for unpublished data that the author intends to publish. If it did then there would be no reason to do this type of research. Scientists have a right to their career and first chance to publish their own data, yes?

[mamamax]

Money + Politics = Control of Information

This is not some random handful of climatologists. These are the MOST influential scientists at the CENTER of the research. They were the gatekeepers in determining what could be published. They are the LEAD authors of various chapters of the IPCC report.

It is obvious to me that they allowed their scientific endeavors to be biased by personal beliefs.

The sad thing is this: Their results may be correct. But their refusal to follow the scientific method (with regard to disclosing their methods and data in a manner that would allow someone to test and replicate their results) may set the science back years. (and give ALL scientists a black eye).

CD - my sentiments exactly.

Some have said and there has been much chatter (as early as 2007) about the fact that scientific efforts were led by a more powerful political climate (than by personal beliefs). I do remember this being a large controversy in the last US Administration. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen....frontpagenews

I've no doubt that when the dust settles - the scientific community will recover.

[mamamax]

The Guardian's reporting has been interesting.

Yesterday's article is getting: way-deep

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ate-scientists

[mamamax]

Interesting article in yesterday's Guardian. Who is Professor Ernst Kattweizel, Where is the University of Redcar and what is the Temple of the Knights Carbonic (of which Prof Kattweizel is supposed to be the 21st Grand Warden ;-)

I like to think my Internet search skills are at least good (compared to some expert level). So I went searching for the answers to the above questions.

I believe the email is a complete hoax (or written in deep code). And suspect some others may be also.

Sent a blank email to the Prof - to test the address, the result:

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

ernst.kattweizel@redcar.ac.uk
Unrouteable address

The eternal question: Where does the sham begin - and where does it end.

[Ballet Mom]

The sad thing is this: Their results may be correct. But their refusal to follow the scientific method (with regard to disclosing their methods and data in a manner that would allow someone to test and replicate their results) may set the science back years. (and give ALL scientists a black eye).

Why would you think that CD? hee hee hee

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLg...layer_embedded

[mamamax]

Hide the Decline

That was/is hysterical Ballet Mom - I'm tuning up my 12-string Ovation right now!! Thanks.

One of my Birthday presents from Portland Oregon on the 21st:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlSPL4jKsro

[Ballet Mom]

I thought this was an interesting article...and sure enough the US was giving grants to these British guys from the U.S. Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration! Wouldn't you know!

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11...y5761180.shtml

And to confirm CD's comments about how important these researchers are to "global warming":

The leaked documents (see our previous coverage) come from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in eastern England. In global warming circles, the CRU wields outsize influence: it claims the world's largest temperature data set, and its work and mathematical models were incorporated into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report. That report, in turn, is what the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged it "relies on most heavily" when concluding that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and should be regulated.

[Ballet Mom]

That was/is hysterical Ballet Mom - I'm tuning up my 12-string Ovation right now!! Thanks.

One of my Birthday presents from Portland Oregon on the 21st:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlSPL4jKsro

Mamamax,

When you've lost Portland, Oregon, you've really lost it! Poor, poor, Al Gore.....not.

Oh, and a late happy birthday to you!

[concerned dad]

Scientists have a right to their career and first chance to publish their own data, yes?

If only that were the case, then I would agree with you 100%.

There is famous (infamous) email exchange (not from the recently leaked stuff) where one of those involved replied as follows to a request for data:


“We have 25 years invested in this. Why should I give you my data when your only objective is to find something wrong with it?”

Sharon, I would ask you rhetorically, What is wrong with this statement? I know you know the answer, but I’ll spell it out to anyone else following along. What is wrong with this statement is that THIS IS NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS! Methods, Data, procedures must be released to allow for an evaluation of the validity of the results obtained. A true scientist would welcome someone trying to “find something wrong with” their work. These guys have rubber stamped each others work It is shameful.

It takes a lot of digging to understand both sides of the AGW argument. It should not. I originally assumed, like you do now, that the science was settled. However, I wanted to try to understand the opposite view. It was an eye opening experience. And, I’m not just talking about this recent release of data and emails.

My views on AGW have changed in much the same way my views on scoliosis bracing have changed. Sharon and I originally sparred here; my attempt to understand her views led me to a clearer picture that the science behind bracing is unresolved. This understanding evolved by looking at the data and understanding the strengths and weaknesses of it: Sharon and I can both point to bracing research papers with results pointing to different conclusions. The data is there to allow us to evaluate the information and form rational conclusions (even if that “conclusion” is that “we don’t know yet”).

Bracing may be efficacious and AGW may be real. The difference is; for bracing efficacy, there is no group blocking studies and research which present opposing views. If that sounds like a conspiracy, well, maybe it is.