Best science

[Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX]

I agree completely. The reality of politics, human nature and value driven
decisions are a reality of scientific institutions as it is for all other
human institutions.  In fact most funding mechanisms seem to have built in
an assumption that can prevent good science from even being considered for
funding: the assumption that science (aka useful or interesting research)
can only be done by people with PhD's who work in a university. NOTE: This
is not a shot, just one person's perspective - be it correct or incorrect.
Dowse your flames please.

> ----------
> From: 	jrg13 at psu.edu[SMTP:jrg13 at psu.edu]
> Reply To: 	jrg13 at psu.edu
> Sent: 	Thursday, May 27, 1999 12:37 AM
> To: 	LEPS-L at lists.yale.edu
> Subject: 	Best science
> 
>  If there is now a rash of proposals
> >being filed to study spread and effects of Bt pollen, don't you think the
> >ones that will get funded are simply the ones which promise to do the
> best
> >science??
> 
> >Doug Yanega
> 
> Under competitive conditions funding may be determined by criteria
> other than soley the "best" science since what approach is, or promises to
> be,
> best is a matter of individual judgement and perspective. In general there
> may
> be considerable agreement on the general parameters of good science,
> but in detail views differ, so it will be a matter of how many reviewers
> just happen to share the same viewpoint close enough to give  a
> project a high enough ranking that it will get priority. Sometimes
> other factors may be involved, such as the level of prominence of the
> project authors, perceptions about their track record, and earlier
> personal interactions between the project investigators and the reviewers.
> These and other factors can and do affect funding. This is not to say
> that the projects funded are necessarily not good science, but
> "best" is a very relative term.
> 
> John Grehan
>