Is Global Warmning a good example of how the private sector can skew science?

Question

Many argue that the gov't should not fund stem cell research, that enough money comes from the private sector to fund this. Given that the private sector also funds GW research (either oil companies or environmental agencies) is this a good reason why govt SHOULD fund this research? That way the special interests are lessened? (govt is required to have balance...companies are not)

I agree tang, but it would be one more step to get there...and then there is always the balance in govt.

Sorry John, i will try and keep it simple for you in the future. That way you can get back to answering the questions at hand...oh wait...you never did. Oh well, I guess you think those 2 points will get you somewhere.

YES! Bush should not fire generals for disagreeing with him! I totally agree the military should run the war, and scientists should run science, and teachers should run schools, and doctors should run their offices! But you didn't mean that did you?

Answer 1

The reason we need government policy on global warming and stem cell research is not necessarily funding, but control of independent studies done by universities, drug companies and other institutes. If the NIH was involved with stem cell research, there could be a data bank for all researchers as to outcomes and studies so they don't get repeated and funds are not wasted. The EPA could be involved with monitoring studies on global warming in the same respect and create programs based on the evidence.

Answer 2

An interesting question, to which unfortunately I'm not devoting enough time or brainpower to answer properly.

But let me try.

I'd say that yes, we always need to consider the source. I don't think anyone is entirely unbiased, even if they try. Including the government, which we have nominal control of, unfortunately

There's an interesting question there about what research should be funded by the government in general. Again, I try to set out a neutral-sounding rule, and try to apply it to every case. Maybe as a start there should be some threshold level of credible evidence that would make people want to further develop the study, the work is not being done sufficiently or reliably by the private sector (or can't be done by them), and there are no other significant objections.

Heck, no one but the government could have done The Manhattan Project! A special case.

I honestly don't know where we are, or more precisely where I am, on the issue of man-made climate change. A consensus or "poll" of leading scientists is useful, but not dispositive. I guess I'd like to see the two (or more) schools of thought with respect to each issue debated, in a way laymen can understand. That way I can make up my own mind.

Has there ever been a high-level public debate on man-made climate change? We should have one.

Oh well. I told you I didn't have too coherent an answer. :(

PS I have asked twice what steps people want the government to take to combat global warming, and didn't get any good answers either time. I'd like to know what is proposed!

Answer 3

I remember doing a school research paper for the effects and damage that acid rain would do to us. I think it was a pretty grave thing when I was a kid, and now ya hear nothing. But there is a great difference between the effects of something like the stem cell research, and something along the lines of global warming. Global warming according to their experts is going to continute no matter what, and one person can not benefit from their own decisions to go "green." However if they perfect the stuff they are talking about with the stem cell research, one person would be able to say, walk again, stuff like that. One small step in the right direction in the stem cell research will do more than a small step for global warming, I think.

Answer 4

I apologize in advance, but I didn't understand you.
If you are against Global Warming, then its your right to question it. The science behind GW comes mostly from other countries.
Very few American companies have a stake in it, because taking GW serious would mean, they have to look at reducing pollution, which hinders in their mind competition.
Actually, because of Republicans voted against the Kioto agreement, the world, with the USA as biggest polluter, is still trying to get some agreement signed. Here, as in everything else, the USA loves to piss of the rest of the world.

Answer 5

Then, when the government takes care of it, we will have another POLITICALLY CONTROLLED BUREAUCRACY to fund and ALL the "science" will be manipulated by political influences.
Makes about as much sense as having politicians controlling a WAR instead of the military!

Answer 6

I think you make a good point. Unfortunately, though, the private companies often have politicians in their pockets, so we can't necessarily rely on the government to have our best interests at heart.

Answer 7

not really.

the vast majority of scientists in the usa and world are in agreement about the principle of global warming.

only on the right wing radical airwaves such as fox news is there any sort of 'debate.'

Answer 8

The Federal Government was created by the Constitution to insure the Defense of Our Country. It was not Created to take care of every social issue people can create for THEMSELVES.

Answer 9

Global warming is a real danger. Wake up & smell the flowers...while you still can!

Answer 10

You are all over the place on this. Hilarous