Is there any legitimate reason to prohibit research?

[JMHawkins]

OK, here's a suggestion: NRA pays for CDC to do the research. NOW where's the bias?

 

But of course the NRA would never pay the (current) CDC to do that, because the CDC has shown a prediliction to be anti-gun. That's my whole point - the agency funding the study picks a researcher already on board with the answer they want to get.

 

Packsaddle, you've got $1.5 million for a climate change study. Dr. Michael Mann and Dr. Tim Ball have submitted grant applications. Who gets the money?

[vol_scouter]

As others have alluded, if the data is charged with political implications, it will not likely be available in a meaningful way. Best example is climate research where the actual raw data is not made available but rather an 'adjusted' data set. Since the raw data and the reasons for the adjustments are not available for scrutiny, it cannot be judged whether the changes are reasonable or not. Often, the data made available for the public has been done this way. Some data is thrown out because it is an outlier and considered inaccurate. However, it can also be thrown out for reasons that other researchers might feel as not a valid reason. If the raw data and the adjustments are not made, then those decisions are never made.

 

If data was collected in a clearly defined manner with all caveats, assumptions, concerns, etc. delineated and all of the raw data reported, then I have no issue with the collection. The publications will be biased just as they are in climate science.

 

Beavah, there are areas of research in medicine that does not get funded or considered favorably in medical journals. An example is infectious causes of heart disease. Evidence based medicine sometimes does more harm than good because medical research is so difficult and expensive to perform and the biases (some driven by pharmaceutical companies in the big name schools).

 

The more politically or economically charged an area of scientific inquiry is, the less likely that there will be any scientific truth. Gun control advocates pervade academia and there will not be a far scientific evaluation. It will be used to restrict our constitutional rights.

 

If your desire is to restrict the constitutional rights, then amend or repeal the Second Amendment. That is what the founding fathers designed. It is not the dangerous rhetoric of Obama and the left.

[packsaddle]

So, the answer to the first question for both of you seems to be 'no'. Am I correct?

[packsaddle]

"Packsaddle, you've got $1.5 million for a climate change study. Dr. Michael Mann and Dr. Tim Ball have submitted grant applications. Who gets the money?"

 

Really. Is that the way you think it works? OK, I'll pretend I'm the NSF. The program directors have a new program and a solicitation is made available to all research organizations (you DO know that private businesses can apply for NSF grants, right?). There will be a set of guidelines for submission. These detail the components of the proposals such as introductory explanation of the proposed research, experience in the field, credentials, budget justification, extended benefits, etc. You can go to their website and get a copy of the proposal guidelines.

 

The NSF will have made a decision prior to the solicitation as to how to limit the amounts in the proposals. I'm going to guess that since about 10-20% of accepted proposals (those which don't meet the guidelines are rejected out of hand) will be funded. The ones that are accepted are likely to number somewhere between 50-100 (just a guess, you never know how many will be submitted or how much funding they request). This program will probably cap the funding for any individual project at 200-300K (at least those seem to be typical numbers that I see). So I'll be able to fund around 5 projects if all of them ask for the max (this is actually not realistic. if you look at the past projects you'll see that a significant number of them ask for far less than the max). Let's just say that eight are likely to be funded.

 

But that estimate is irrelevant because ALL of them will go through a review process. The reviewers are people who have been involved with NSF in the past and have some knowledge of the process and some interest in the field. They all have been reviewed themselves and they have all published peer-reviewed papers in the field. This process is honest and ruthless. If a proposal is funded the second time it's submitted (one cycle per year), that is considered a huge success.

To be sure, there are examples of projects which failed but for the most part, the success of this process is evidenced by the comparatively good life you live today. Almost every convenience of society (food, transportation, energy production, etc.) is the result of a similar process applied to past research.

 

So the answer to your question as to 'who' gets the funding? If only two PI's send proposals to a program like that, I'll happily eat the guidelines printed on your choice of paper. The funding will go to whoever the peer review committee decides and short of being on the review committee, I couldn't begin to predict who would be funded.

 

But I will tell you that if Tim Ball submitted a proposal written like what I see in his web site, I'd predict poor success, regardless of who else submits proposals. I have undergraduates who can do better. If he has EVER submitted a proposal to NSF, I'd like to know about it.

 

The two of you seem to have your butts frosted (attempt at clever figure of speech ) by the idea of climate change so I'll repeat my question that I asked someone, maybe Vol_scouter, a few days ago: Are you familiar with Richard Muller? Are you familiar with his stature as a climate skeptic (and, incidentally, his excellent credentials as an actual scientist)? Are you familiar with the examination he did, funded by Koch? Here's a summary, published, as I mentioned before, in that pinko rag, the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html

 

Or you can go to his website and gain free access to all of his work, the datasets, everything.

 

Or, if your answer to my first question about the value of gathering the sorts of data this thread is supposed to be about...is 'no', then no further thought is necessary.

 

[JMHawkins]

So, the answer to the first question for both of you seems to be 'no'. Am I correct?

 

I'm sorry, I've missed a turn somewhere. What was the first question?

[packsaddle]

"So I ask you the same question that vol_scouter seems unable to answer: "Vol_scouter, do you see any value in collecting this data into a dataset that could be analyzed by anyone?""

 

You and Vol_scouter seem to be answering, 'no'.

[CalicoPenn]

Data doesn't have political biases. How data is interpreted can have political bias, though the most common way politics steps in is when data is collected, the report is prepared, and the politicians step in and demand that the report not be released because it doesn't agree with what the politicians hoped it would prove.

[packsaddle]

Calico, the only time I've ever seen what you described first hand, is when it was done by private industry. In the public domain, once a report is written it's almost impossible to 'kill' it. (ever hear of "The Pentagon Papers"?) Yes it is possible to keep a report from being sent to the news media and yes, it's possible to attempt to discredit it in some way. But a research scientist who writes something can always send draft copies for 'review'. I admit, sometimes it takes some courage to speak truth to power but that is a matter of courage, not a prohibition of communication.

 

In my experience, politicians were the last to know the results. And by that time they merely needed to engage the spin doctors if they had a problem with it (I doubt that they or their aids read anything beyond the executive summaries). But like I wrote before, I was kept at a distance from politicians, mostly to allow my superiors the ability to shield politicians from my blunt remarks, lol. I'm not a diplomat. (they kept me away from the attorneys too, probably just as well) And I was good with that arrangement...I don't particularly like politicians, especially these days.

 

But NEVER did my branch chief, division chief, or lab director, or the brass above them ask me to do anything but to do my best job in complete objective honesty. It was a breath of fresh air compared to industry.

[JMHawkins]

In a hypothetical case where unbiased data could be collected and made available in a raw and comprehensible form, there would be some value in that. Whether there would be enough value to justify the expense is another question, depending on a) the subject, and b) quality of the data.

 

For a), I see little value in collecting health care data on gun ownership. The entire premise of such a study would likely be flawed - gun ownership is not the cause of gun injuries, gun use or misuse is, but we have no scientific means of evaluating the connection between the two. All we can do is tally up numbers and make guesses about correlation and causation. Further, I doubt the most significant variables in whatever the actual function V = f(GO) (violence = function of Gun Ownership) is would be included in the study. Culture, for example, which is generally a politically sensitive topic. Yet there are countries around the world with gun ownership that is a fraction of that in the US while gun deaths are several hundred percent higher (and these aren't all in places with civil wars raging). That is a highly politically charged question to even ask, let alone answer. And while from a scientific standpoint perhaps that's unfortunate, from a societal one, maybe it is good to avoid asking some questions that can smear innocent people with the answers. Just how many rocks are we willing to turn over here?

 

For b) the quality of the data will vary based on the competence of the researcher, and the limitations imposed by the parameters of the study. The more politically charged the subject, the more intrusive the limitations and pre-selection biases will be.

 

So the answer to your question is, in theory, yes, but in practice, it depends. For some subjects, absolutely - dengue fever perhaps, though unless it's a lot more widespread in the US than I had thought, perhaps it should take a back seat to funding things like West Nile virus. For other subject - gun ownership - no, in practice the data will be useless. Worse than useless - misused.

[Tampa Turtle]

Let us remember that research should be:

 

(1) Data openly available for review.

(2) Method published for peer review and criticism.

(3) Be repeatable using above data and methods.

 

Repeat until necessary.

[Beavah]

JMHawkins, who is proposin' research on gun ownership? That's da stuff for a gun manufacturer's marketing effort, not for any other practical purpose.

 

Da nature of research would relate to da CDC and CPSC missions of researching gun injuries and fatalities.

 

What are the numbers of accidents? What are da primary factors in da accidents? Age? Training? Type of use? Product features (ex. lots of jams / hard to clear)? Drug or alcohol use? What can we do to mitigate da accidents?

 

What are the figures on suicides? Why do some suicides convert to murder/suicides? What are the factors in that? Are they tied to specific medications or mental health diagnoses? Which meds, what doses? How are suicide guns usually obtained? Is there a preference as to type of firearm used (so that programs can be put in place in terms of marketing or sales to reach disturbed individuals before a disaster)? Any common factors that could be warning signs or contraindications?

 

What are da figures on homicides? Where are those firearms obtained? What percentage are heat of the moment vs. criminal enterprise vs. premeditated?

 

What are da real figures on self-defense with firearms? How many are successful? Usin' what tactics or weapons? What sort of experience/training makes that more likely to be successful?

 

One can dream up a thousand interestin' research questions that should be pursued, none of which would be on gun ownership. Many of which, like figurin' out da relationship to Rx drug use, would definitely involve collecting health care data. We might find out that gun-related murder/suicide is very strong in football players sufferin' from repetitive head trauma.

 

Beavah

 

[JMHawkins]

Fine Beavah, but why the fixation on guns? People engage in all sorts of violence with whatever tools are at hand. Shooting themselves is the most common way for men to commit suicide, but women prefer poison. Alaska (a state I imagine has quite a few firearms) has the highest suicide rate in the US, but Texas (another state with lots of guns) has one of the lowest. Suicide is the 3rd leading cause of death among people 10-19 years of age (an important age group for us, eh?). Between 1992 and 2001 the number shooting themselves declined significantly, but the number suffocating or hanging themselves increased by almost the same amount. Where did I find that? A CDC study...

 

A study looking at whether modern mental health care methods work? Great. Why would guns be the focus? Of course the answer is because there's an agenda behind it to produce propaganda for a particular political viewpoint. If there is no such agenda, then the study focuses on the care given and the effectiveness of it, not on the presence or absence of a gun. Injecting the object of a contentious political debate into the research distorts the issue, undermines the credibility of the research.

 

That's what I mean when I say publically funded research on policy issues is wrong. Guns are a policy issue, not a medical disease. You can indeed imagine may potentially useful questions to ask, but when the answers are inevitably going to be used in a highly charged political debate, the odds are against you getting answers that are useful for anything else.

 

 

 

[acco40]

JMHawkins - are drugs a policy issue? Yes. Should drug research continue yes. I think your argument is totally inane.

 

So, unless we get universal agreement on something, let's continue to stick our heads in the sand? I'm not quite sure of the academic definition of disease, but the incidence of gun violence in the USA makes it a health issue. As such, it should be studied.

 

I guess that just deep down, I have more faith in research. Yes, there are some to try and use it for political gain but by and large, I think that science wins out in the long run.

 

Look at aids research. Talk about a politically charged topic. I remember when being Haitian was considered a risk factor for aids. Science and research helped to cut through the fog and showed that neither attending bath houses nor being Haitian led folks to being HIV positive but certain behaviors did - unprotected sex or IV drug use where the sharing of bodily fluids was a risky behavior - as was receiving blood transfusions (before the blood supply was properly screened), etc. There were folks that didn't want research done because of the politics but that's just being too much of a Luddite for me.

[packsaddle]

Poor Ned, all he wanted to do was keep his job and now he's associated with all sorts of things. I think the better label would be 'neo-Luddite' which is what quite a few think I am, heh, heh, with some justification I suppose.

 

Promoting continued ignorance doesn't warrant a label other than what it is. That's more informative than having someone's obscure 18th century name attached to it. (I do note that he failed miserably in his efforts back then. An omen, perhaps, for his sympathizers today?)

[Beavah]

Fine Beavah, but why the fixation on guns?

 

I don't reckon there's any fixation. I think if there was any tool or disease that was killing or injuring tens of thousands of people a year we would be doin' research on it. Thirty thousand deaths with coal mining equipment would create an enormous outcry; thirty thousand deaths of disease from coal mining garners millions of dollars of research. If da coal mining industry and its friends tried to block research like that they would rightly be pilloried.

 

Beavah