I'm not a scientist, but I almost was. I was a chemistry undergrad and I tried grad school (UC Berkeley), but I failed out of my P-chem comps. I'm not too good at that kind of math. (I.e., differential equations, which are big in thermodynamics). I took a few geochemistry courses while trying to determine if I could survive in that realm, but ended up down the road (literally) into Silicon Valley to get enough IT training to switch careers and make a living. So I've seen and talked, and worked with (slightly) with some interesting (and skilled) scientists.
I can see what you mean about grant-driven science. In the "hot" climate field, what do you say about scientists that get funding from corporations and corporation associations? It's the same problem doctors face when they get (or got) money to research the health effects of tobacco from tobacco companies.
So it would seem to come down to peer-review, a process that is changing due to the insidious power of the Internet and WWW. Peer-review is supposed to weed out the bad and keep the good, in terms of research publications that end up in journals. So when you say "peer-review" above, is that what you mean, or do you mean review of grant renewals by whoever supplied the money? If the latter, then you have to differentiate between a juried grant process such as that used by the National Science Foundation, or the more insular process that might be practiced by foundations. I can see that the foundations might be unlikely to continue funding someone whose results might be antithetical to their "vision".
The essence of the intellectual problem is that pre-college and undergraduate education is so bad and so ideologically socialist that there is a serious lack of what we used to call an education among the professorate (history, philosophy, the Constitution... you know, education). The very nature of post graduate study is also destructive to interdisciplinary knowledge. Thus most of our "experts" are both very narrow and very gullible. The invasion of technical departments by sociologists has made that situation far worse. "Subjective science" has become not only an approved philosophy, but chic. See "deep ecology."
It would appear that depends on the field. I didn't see this in the hard[er] sciences. I think I understand that if a field such as population biology is invaded by someone interpreting the results in terms of their impact on Gaia, then this type of contamination could occur. At the same time, the UC Berkeley chemistry profs seemed primarily to know lots about chemistry and much less about other subjects.
I do a fair amount of research on my own. One of my more interestging recent observations is about the role of light in managing downcut erosion in steep canyons. Such research is practically verboten because of rules governing riparian access. Unfortunately, I could show you how the vegetation management rules advocated by conservation biologists will be enormously destructive to my forest, causing enormous landslides in the name of controlling erosion.
I believe you could, but I don't understand what you mean by light to manage downcut erosion -- my guess is that you need enough light penetration to allow the ground cover to grow and stabilize the land surface. Close?
You see, there is no accountability among the professorate for a Type II error. Because of their isolated approaches they have little respect for the risks they take due to errors of inaction...
You didn't define what you mean(t) by Type I and Type II errors.
I unfortunately don't think I'd have time to read your book and do it justice. I have three toddlers at home (timing is everything). I'm lucky if I finish the Sunday paper by Tuesday. But I'd be willing to continue the conversation if you're willing to educate me. If not, I can understand demands on your time as well.
So when you say "peer-review" above, is that what you mean, or do you mean review of grant renewals by whoever supplied the money?
Neither. I mean that the peers understand who gives the money and what they want. They end up with selective vision as a group, believing what they study in isolation, forgetting the bigger picture. They become resistant to whomever might disturb the applecart. It's because of the funding source and the adulation they get for the "correct" conclusions.
I think I understand that if a field such as population biology is invaded by someone interpreting the results in terms of their impact on Gaia, then this type of contamination could occur.
Think about who has the big impacts in species listings. More of a problem are the recommended prescriptive means which almost always rely upon preservation as a solution. It often doesn't work for reasons I detail in the book.
You didn't define what you mean(t) by Type I and Type II errors.
LOL! That was a test (to see if you were really a scientist). Given your comment, I see that it was unnecessary. Sorry, but I hate fakes enough that sometimes I think it necessary.
A Type I error is the false acceptance of the alternative hypothesis, in this case, that nature requires active management by people. The view of most environmental preservationists is that this is not true.
The Type II error is the false acceptance of the null hypothesis that nature will function best if left alone. This is demonstrably false in the presence of introduced exotic species. It is also ignorant of the fact that an interface with humans will always be there and will always require management. Of course, those in the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement would argue that there is a simple fix to that one...
Among statisticians, the Type II error is the more egregious. With a Type I error you eventually find out your mistake. Fail to test a hypothesis further because of a Type II error and you may never learn your mistake.