Posted by
Andrews on Monday, January 04, 2010 6:51:20 PM
I was following up on my earlier post "
The Role of Money" by reading some of the
commentary on Quackwatch relating to the White House report on Complementary and Alternative Medicine (the Bush White House, not the Obama, as it is an old report). What struck me as particularly interesting was a comment on how ill conceived it was to put advocates for CAM in charge of committees determining how research funds would be allocated to investigate the validity of CAM:
No,
it is a perfect example of why "CAM" advocated should
not have special funding or set their own research agenda. Although
the NIH National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine
(NCCAM) and its predecessors have existed for ten years and spent
more than $100 million for research, it has not produced a single
significant research finding. Although its mission is to separate
what works from what does not, NCCAM has failed to identify a
single "alternative" method as effective or as irrational.
Moreover, it is pointless to waste scarce research dollars on
methods that are highly unlikely or already known not to work.
What makes this interesting is it is exactly what skeptics have been saying about the IPCC and other global warming groups for years ("
The Failure of Peer Review", "
Bad Economics Part 1", "
Shocking Numbers", "
The Dishonesty of Avatar"), that the true believers have control over the review process, the allocation of funds,a dn the rest, and so, of course all science agrees with their positions, as the gatekeepers have a clear cut orthodoxy.
Of course, when I wrote my objections I was modest in my claims and assumed most scientists, even the most partisan, were honest researchers, and did not fake evidence or consciously exclude material with which they disagreed. It was my thought that they applied the usual human bias, asking for more evidence of points with which they disagreed, thus, unconsciously introducing a pro-AGW bias. But since the University of East Anglia email revelations it seems I was too generous, and they really were acting in a dishonest manner, excluding consciously those with whom they disagreed.
But my point here is that it is interesting that scientists can see the error in giving control over various areas of research to ideologically biased groups, yet seemingly cannot see how the same is true of AGW and "climate change" research. Why not?