Replies to post #160571 on Biotech Values

[vinmantoo]

{{Palin was commenting on US funding for science being done in France - not as the ever objective Madcow portrayed Palin's comment.}}

Palin is an imbecile and that blurb makes it clear. She was decrying the funding of research on fruit flies. Whether it was done in France is irrelevant as many collaborations are with labs in different countries. The France angle was just the typical xenophobic non-sense that spews forth form that ignorant simpleton Palin.


{{Peer-review for grant funding in the scientific fields I've been involved in is greatly flawed. The "I'll scratch your back and you scratch mine" happens frequently.}}

I am sorry you have had bad experiences, and no system is perfect. I am proud of the decisions that I have made and I didn't let any quid pro quo be involved. If you did then the shame is on you, as well as others who did it, and the shame is well-deserved.



{{I've had federal program managers tell me that decisions on programs to be cut have been made before program reviews for that purpose occurred.}}

There is a big difference between cutting overall funding or in a specific area, as opposed to havgin some pre-deicsn about who gets funding, which is total BS.



{{I've also listened to a couple of professors bragging about how much DOE money they were going to get for their new research institute even though the reviews hadn't been conducted because certain Californian politicians had assured them that the money would be forth-coming.}}


So, you are damning the peer review system such as what happens at the NIH or NCI because you know a few professors bragging about some politically driven funding for California that bypasses peer-reivew. That is absurd. If you are complaining about a state program distributing money without independent peer-review, then yes that is a problem. In fact, that is exactly why I am upset about what some Texas politician, and the imbecile Palin are and were, respectively, talking about doing.


{{Of course, in principle peer-review is a great thing; however, as it is frequently practiced it is often corrupt. A PhD and an understanding of science does not assure ethical behavior.}}

Ah, finally something that I agree with, but it is completely besides the point. The issue is that a system with input by politicians would be far worse than the imperfect peer-review system we have now.