- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Scott Pruitt Unveils Controversial Limits to Scientific Research
Posted on 4/24/18 at 11:26 pm
Posted on 4/24/18 at 11:26 pm
quote:
EPA's Pruitt unveils controversial limits to scientific research
CNN headline, no link. NY Times article I read was pretty melty as well. That controversial limit? The proposed rule would only allow the EPA to consider studies where the underlying data is made available publicly.
Surely nobody would actually be against this, right? I mean if the science is settled, the public should know about it, right? I have much more to say but just thought I'd share this since I haven't seen it today.
15
Posted on 4/24/18 at 11:31 pm to wutangfinancial
Transparency? Blasphemy!
Posted on 4/25/18 at 12:17 am to wutangfinancial
Lamar Smith was backing this. It is ironic that he would want this passed since he once read into the Congressional record an article from a blog post on climate change, that not only didn't provide the data, but was not peer reviewed.
The fact that Smith is the House Science Committee Chairman says it all.
The fact that Smith is the House Science Committee Chairman says it all.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 12:23 am to wutangfinancial
quote:
Surely nobody would actually be against this, right?
There is a lot of research that goes on using proprietary data. Data that some company or organization might allow to be used with NDAs in place in order to protect their intellectual property or trade secrets.
I'm conflicted on this one.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 1:26 am to Sid in Lakeshore
Not to mention some data, such as health impacts and information, is acquired via patient records. That’s probably not stuff those patients want released.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 1:38 am to Sid in Lakeshore
quote:
There is a lot of research that goes on using proprietary data. Data that some company or organization might allow to be used with NDAs in place in order to protect their intellectual property or trade secrets.
I'm conflicted on this one.
So we should make policy, affecting 320 million Americans with data that we can't see, can't re-analyze, and can't validate?
Posted on 4/25/18 at 1:41 am to thetigerman
quote:
Not to mention some data, such as health impacts and information, is acquired via patient records. That’s probably not stuff those patients want released.
There are plenty of algorithms to de-identify and anonymize such data. It's done all the time and you can go to pubmed right now and find plenty of papers that have raw data in them.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 5:50 am to wutangfinancial
So they think taxpayers shouldn't be able to see what they bought?
Posted on 4/25/18 at 6:06 am to wutangfinancial
quote:
The proposed rule would only allow the EPA to consider studies where the underlying data is made available publicly.
I can't even comprehend how that is controversial
Posted on 4/25/18 at 6:07 am to Sid in Lakeshore
quote:
There is a lot of research that goes on using proprietary data. Data that some company or organization might allow to be used with NDAs in place in order to protect their intellectual property or trade secrets.
I'm conflicted on this one
There's nothing to be conflicted about. Science absolutely requires replication studies which obviously can't be done if you keep how you did your study Secret
Posted on 4/25/18 at 6:10 am to ShortyRob
Transparency can be a real pain in the arse when you’re trying to cloak an agenda.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 8:03 am to ShortyRob
Unfortunately it would rule out a number of valid studies today.
I’m a bit of an idealist here, believing that data should be open source whenever possible, but the unfortunate truth is that it’s simply not the case.
Example: My employer currently pays a butt-load of money for me to have access to global macroeconomic data and forecasts created by Oxford Economics. When I use those for research, I of course am obliged to identify Oxford as the source of the data, but I am not allowed to make the data publicly available. Big data is a business and Oxford Economics devotes a lot of their resources to remaining competitive in this space. That means restricting their data to only those who pay for it.
Which in my view will be the biggest downside of this limit. It will mean the removal of private business from the research process in favor of the vast majority of the data being government generated.
I’m a bit of an idealist here, believing that data should be open source whenever possible, but the unfortunate truth is that it’s simply not the case.
Example: My employer currently pays a butt-load of money for me to have access to global macroeconomic data and forecasts created by Oxford Economics. When I use those for research, I of course am obliged to identify Oxford as the source of the data, but I am not allowed to make the data publicly available. Big data is a business and Oxford Economics devotes a lot of their resources to remaining competitive in this space. That means restricting their data to only those who pay for it.
Which in my view will be the biggest downside of this limit. It will mean the removal of private business from the research process in favor of the vast majority of the data being government generated.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 8:08 am to wutangfinancial
quote:
The proposed rule would only allow the EPA to consider studies where the underlying data is made available publicly.
Well...that IS controversial.
Progressive leaning "scientists" have relied on pinky-swears for the last 10 years.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 8:08 am to Sid in Lakeshore
quote:
There is a lot of research that goes on using proprietary data. Data that some company or organization might allow to be used with NDAs in place in order to protect their intellectual property or trade secrets.
The only data that a corporation would pay to collect and willingly give over to the greater good is data that would ultimately increase earnings or hinder the progress of a competitor.
This post was edited on 4/25/18 at 8:09 am
Posted on 4/25/18 at 8:11 am to funnystuff
Is the Oxford economic data generated using public funds?
Posted on 4/25/18 at 8:11 am to ShortyRob
It’s controversial because it means people can use the data to pick apart all the bullshite reports the EPA uses, mainly for global warming.
Anyone else find it sadly hilarious that “science” has the same rules as a fundamentalist cult when it comes to policies the left believes in?
Anyone else find it sadly hilarious that “science” has the same rules as a fundamentalist cult when it comes to policies the left believes in?
Posted on 4/25/18 at 8:15 am to wutangfinancial
quote:
Surely nobody would actually be against this, right?
Often times guaranteeing anonymity to subjects is the only way to gather an appropriate number for research.
If you couldn't guarantee absolute anonymity of research subjects on sensitive topics (e.g. MSM and related diseases), then the ability for researchers to answer specific important questions is seriously hindered.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 8:18 am to Oilfieldbiology
No, but my employer is a state university that receives public funds. Which is a more apt comprison anyway.
My point is that this rule change would prevent the EPA from buying data generated/collected by private firms who are operating for profit. And there are a bunch of them
My point is that this rule change would prevent the EPA from buying data generated/collected by private firms who are operating for profit. And there are a bunch of them
Posted on 4/25/18 at 8:19 am to funnystuff
Economic data is a result of the business that generates it.
Climate data should be available as well as methods and statistics used to test hypothesis. That is how medical journals are able to be peer reviewed and published.
Climate data should be available as well as methods and statistics used to test hypothesis. That is how medical journals are able to be peer reviewed and published.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 8:25 am to wutangfinancial
quote:
The proposed rule would only allow the EPA to consider studies where the underlying data is made available publicly.
You mean this wasn't done before Scott Pruitt?
I didn't even know this. This is soviet style research.
The fricking left are nothing but police state tyrants.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News