just when you thought you knew what stupid was

[5030]

And yet another thread headed for the infamous MC lock.

 

[oosik]

My take - - Man am I glad he is sheriff of Marion Co., FL & I live up here in NE WA state.

 

[ruffdog]

"Just before the patient died, they looked at their nurse and they said, 'I think I made a mistake. I thought this was a hoax but it's not,'"

 

[RSR]

And of course, there is no agenda there. Nope. Not a bit.

Actually, there isn't. I realize that can be very hard to believe, as government in general often does have an agenda. But, scientific funding is a very open process, and is very carefully separated from political influence. It works as follows (using NSF as an example. Other funding agencies may vary slightly, but the general process is the same).

A full explanation would be lengthy, although I'm happy to give it, or answer specific questions, if interested. The Cliff notes version is this:

1) Solicitations for grants can be targeted, or unsolicited. Most are unsolicited meaning "submit whatever idea you have for research, we'll evaluate it, and decide if it is worth being funded." (No agenda on what they are looking to fund). Targeted solicitations are looking for particular topics. For example, they'll say, "we are looking to fund research on COVID-19." That's basically it. No agenda.

2) A program manager, a temporary 2-4 year position filled by a scientist from a university or research lab (not a government bureaucrat), in a particular focus area convenes a review panel of scientists to evaluate proposals by identifying experts in the field and asking them to review proposals.

3) A panel is usually comprised of 8-10 individuals that will review about 30 proposals. Each proposal is reviewed in detail by 3 panel members, and then discussed by the entire group. The discussion is based solely on specific review criteria that only evaluate the scientific merit of the proposal. Period. This focus on only reviewing if it is good science, and ignoring any other influences, is a fundamental tenet of review, anywhere. There is zero discussion or even consideration of anything even remotely political. Mandatory training prior to serving on a panel emphasizes how to identify any biases you may have, and how to avoid them at all costs. The money comes from the government, but they don't get to choose who is funded. The independent panel of experts does that.

4) Each grant is given a score, based solely on the review panel. The program manager is not allowed to provide any input on this. Any conflicts of interest are closely vetted, and those panelists are removed from the room during discussion, and not allowed to review or discuss those proposals.

5) The grants are ranked by score, and the top ones, based on available funding, get funded. The others are denied. At NSF, about 10% of submitted grants are funded. 90% are turned down. Only the top, carefully vetted proposals make it through.

6)The panel members volunteer their time. Serving on a panel is usually about 30-40 hours of work, which you have to squeeze in over about a 4 week period in addition to your other job responsibilities. You are paid $200 for that time ...

7) Panel members destroy all copies of proposals when completed, and are not allowed to divulge what panel they served on (so no one knows who reviewed which grants). They are only allowed to say, "I was a reviewer for an NSF panel".

 

[Industrial Toys]

Maybe it's just me. But at the end of the day, I would sooner believe a mechanic or brick layer over some academic.

 

[RickB]

Maybe it's just me. But at the end of the day, I would sooner believe a mechanic or brick layer over some academic.

About mechanics or masonry, yes. But when you use experts in those fields for guidance on important unrelated topics such as pandemic medicine you prove that you really do not know what stupid is.

 

[ProjectKing]

I will respect and accept the moving target of science as it battles to understand a new disease far more than a herd of jacklegs with no training, experience or relevant education that parrot Facebook memes and pretend to know all.

Lmao! Best post ever!

 

[ProjectKing]

About mechanics or masonry, yes. But when you use experts in those fields for guidance on important unrelated topics such as pandemic medicine you prove that you really do not know what stupid is.

You can’t fix stupid.

RSR thank you for your work and trying to educate folks here on the forum.

 

[shooterdon]

I trust Dr Fauci because he is the top expert.

He always speaks the truth except when he needs to lie to save humanity from normal people who want to use up N95 masks when medical workers lives were more important.

He has been consistent throughout this pandemic. Consistently modifying recommendations as new facts emerge that counter the facts he had mere days ago. It is difficult to Be an expert when the science and data keep changing.

Thankfully we can depend on the WHO and it痴 expertise and transparency for those times Fauci makes a rare error.

 

[deezler]

Well said, Don.

It's just so strange to me, the prevalence of folks who actively distrust scientists and the general news media who still generally reports their findings in a largely accurate manner. Of course there is some bias and marketing going on, but it doesn't seem that hard to acknowledge and look past. Newspapers work really, really hard to avoid losing your trust, because then their income disappears. The New York times, for example, does NOT want to issue corrections or be caught in a lie or conspiracy. They are accurate.

So you don't trust scientists, yet you probably take prescription pills for something or other. You don't trust scientists, yet you happily get in your car and burn hydrocarbons in a fascinatingly complex engine as you drive into town. You eat food thats been engineered in a laboratory, maybe every day. You watch with pride as we send astronauts into space and dock into our international space station.

And then, when society asks you for ONE MEASLY sacrifice to help humanity, you'd rather distrust science to avoid a tiny inconvenience. I dunno, there's not much to call that kind of thinking beyond the word selfish.