Replies

exDemMom: I suppose your extensive knowledge of the quality of scientific journals and the mechanics of the peer-review process comes from having read thousands of scientific articles published in dozens or hundreds of peer-review journals, and from having participated extensively in the peer-review process, either as an author or a reviewer?

Makes you wonder what "peer reviewed" journals she's been placing her "faith" in doesn't it?

Even atheists have to live by faith (in their "peer reviewed" journals one supposes) -- a faith that demands that there is no God, and as internally contradictory as the Darwinism is that they use to affirm their faith ...

"Darwinian Dissonance?" by Paul A. Dernavich (as published in "Internet Infidels" 2003)

... it must be disconcerting to see how often this "faith" finds it self to have been sorely mis-placed.

In cancer science, many "discoveries" don't hold up

Many Scientists Admit to Misconduct

Like exDemMom, I too am a professional biochemist. Unlike her though I have advanced in my career to a place well-beyond simply mixing the buffers, prepping the samples, running the gels, taking the Polaroids, and creating "poster sessions" for coffee break discussions at scientific gatherings.

Among doing things like seeing to it that the science supporting a regulatory marketing application is robust enough to support the label claims of the therapy, or resolving regulatory compliance issues in which pharma firms often find themselves, the firm which I own is called upon to sift through and identify what is reproducible science from that which is merely irreproducible wishful thinking and other one-off bench-top successes.

This service is performed on behalf of clients who are hedge funds and investment houses looking to place what are in most cases millions of dollars in what some calling themselves scientists have billed as therapeutic and technological advancements in health care. The technologies I evaluate span from novel biologics and vaccines, to pharmaceutical formulations of all kinds, to medical devices and drug-device combinations thereof

PhDs parade in front of me routinely and it astounds me to see how unpolished many of them are in their presentations, and so parochial in their interests that they are often unable to demonstrate a basic command of their scientific rationale.

Some theparies I have evaluated are truly promising medical advancements and worth my clients' financial investment. Many simply aren't. The science behind the claims all too often and as the article above describes just isn't all that robust.

Still, in all my years of reading thousands of published and non-published ostensibly "peer reviewed" studies and clinical studies involving a host of wonder-products and therapies, not one paper I have ever encountered or presentation I have ever heard made has tried to credit their findings on the basis of having anything to do with evolutionary premise or Darwinian dogma.

One may observe that what ever they think they know about their biochemistry, they certainly don't rely on Darwin-speak to prop it up.

One might suspect that the reason for this is because they actually hope to get their projects funded, and to do so one will have to actually stick with observable, testable, reproducible science!

FReegards!

exDemMom to Agamemnon: I suppose your extensive knowledge of the quality of scientific journals and the mechanics of the peer-review process comes from having read thousands of scientific articles published in dozens or hundreds of peer-review journals, and from having participated extensively in the peer-review process, either as an author or a reviewer?

Although you ( exDemMom) seem quick enough to assert the superiority of scientific knowledge over all of human experience, you’ve yet to explain what peer-review process, published in what scientific journal, has lead Mankind to conclude all men are created equal, that they are then endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, and that governments thereby derive their just power from the consent of the governed. These are questions that you seem unable to bring yourself to answer, while you continue to assert Science’s superiority and tout it as the only endeavour worthy of serious human pursuit.

Nor have you yet explained what part of the formula E=mc2 impelled the Truman Administration to go into an extensive internal ethical debate before the decision was made to drop the bomb that ended WWII. Further, you have been reminded that there was no scientific reason to not simply drop the bomb without a moment’s hesitation beyond the technical considerations involved in the bomb’s effective delivery. What, then, caused the Truman Administration to hesitate?  Although you seem more than willing to preach the standard doctrine about what’s “testable” and what’s “falsifiable” you appear to have no reply to that elementary inquiry.

When reminded, you were quick to report that the Tuskegee Experiment had been terminated and that steps had been taken to assure that a repetition would not be allowed. Why? What breach of scientific process protocol or of scientific practice brought about the abrupt termination of that experiment?  Again, no reply . . . just assurances that such mistakes will not be repeated. What mistakes? According to what peer-reviewed scientific publication?

Likewise, we might inquire what has been found “falsifiable” in any of the events described above that reduces them to mere “existentialist nonsense” or “thought meandering”? What of freedom of inquiry? What of freedom of association? Are they all to be simply dismissed as vain pursuits of no practical value?

0bama (and his many sycophants) would agree.

Agamemnon: “Makes you wonder what “peer reviewed” journals she’s been placing her “faith” in doesn’t it?”

Spirited: The differences between those on one hand who have actually done the hard work of digging into, unpacking, and analyzing the underlying meaning, logic, and purpose of philosophies, ideologies, and evolutionary scientism (what passes for ‘science’ these days) and those on the other hand who have not must not be understated.

The former seek truth, whether pleasant or unpleasant, while the latter most generally seek self-gratification, self-glorification, power, and/or entry to “inner circles.”

The latter affix labels to themselves such as Ph.d, scientist, and Progressive and sport them for the same reason as they wear designer label clothing, jewelry, etc.

Being high on conceit and hot-air but very low on real knowledge, they must pretend to know what they really do not know.

Makes you wonder what "peer reviewed" journals she's been placing her "faith" in doesn't it?

Why do you assume to know something about my faith? All you know is that I'm a scientist. That tells you nothing about my religious beliefs.

Hmm, how do you know where I am in my career? I just checked my home page; as I thought, it says nothing about my current career status.

And taking Polaroids? We stopped doing that while I was in grad school, sometime in the 90s.

I also, despite what you try to imply, am quite aware of the current status and reliability of scientific research. No scientific study is perfect; some are utter trash--but that topic, although I am passionate about it, is best left to another discussion. So is the issue of scientific misconduct, which is a topic I care about deeply.

One may observe that what ever they think they know about their biochemistry, they certainly don't rely on Darwin-speak to prop it up.

Within the scientific community, there is no real debate over whether evolution is a real process or not. And the fact that our language isn't peppered with the words "evolution" or "Darwin" is not an indication that the principles of evolution are not being used. They are. It is difficult to even envision how life science research could advance without taking into consideration the many implications of the theory of evolution, because it forms such a fundamental basis of our science.

It appears from your post that you work in a legal firm of some sort, dealing with patent issues. I do not expect someone whose primary exposure to scientific research is at the level of clinical trials to be aware of the evolutionary considerations that guided the research before it entered the clinical trial state. The purpose of clinical trials is not to advance scientific knowledge; it is to procure regulatory approval for a product.

Oops, I know I already replied to this one, but I forgot to address this last night.

One may observe that what ever they think they know about their biochemistry, they certainly don't rely on Darwin-speak to prop it up.

One might suspect that the reason for this is because they actually hope to get their projects funded, and to do so one will have to actually stick with observable, testable, reproducible science!

One would assume that those sitting on the review committees are fully aware of the evolutionary relationships being exploited/explored as the basis for whatever research proposal they are considering. Someone, for example, studying a disease in mice as a model for the human disease does not have to resort to "Darwin-speak" in order for the review committee to understand that they are, in fact, utilizing the established evolutionary relationship between humans and mice for their research.

As for supposedly not explicitly mentioning evolution in grant proposals--well, it actually is mentioned by name in many proposals; scientists discuss it routinely. I'd like to see a scientist who tries to deny the process of evolution and still manage to get funded. They might as well try to get funding for the study of fairies and elves--there is just as much of a scientific basis for that as there is for young earth creationism.