If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Bush administration eliminates funds to Oregon State researchers who discover things unpopular with administration   (achangeinthewind.typepad.com) divider line 77
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

1769 clicks; posted to Geek » on 08 Feb 2006 at 1:21 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



77 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-02-08 12:27:25 AM
home.comcast.net
 
2006-02-08 12:28:02 AM
Couple this story with the one about the NASA guy, and you've got everything you need to know about Bush's regards for science.

Fascist is, as fascist does.
 
2006-02-08 12:32:41 AM
Bush only likes science that supports his beliefs and politcal agenda.
 
2006-02-08 12:35:24 AM
Oh oh. Oregon's been banninated.

:(
 
2006-02-08 12:35:36 AM
Bushie once kicked my science teacher and stole my microscope.
 
2006-02-08 12:35:37 AM
Lyotard was right. Capitolism owns science
 
2006-02-08 12:38:12 AM
Unbelievable.
 
2006-02-08 12:39:50 AM
This makes perfect sense to me. Jesus told me it would work out this way.

/trying for some of that sweet Fed money
 
2006-02-08 12:39:52 AM
Abagadro Unbelievable
 
2006-02-08 12:40:30 AM
RedbeardUH: Capitolism owns science

What does capitalism have to do with it?
 
2006-02-08 12:42:05 AM
From the original article referred to in the blog:

The research, led by a 29-year-old graduate student, already had come under attack within OSU's College of Forestry by professors who contend that logging and replanting speed recovery of burned forests.

Those professors tried but failed to persuade Science not to publish the one-page report.


It sounds to me as if there was more than one faction involved with this controversy.
 
2006-02-08 12:42:40 AM
GraphicAddiction: Bushie once kicked my science teacher and stole my microscope.



That explains why you are such an anti-Bush "Independent".
 
2006-02-08 12:43:35 AM
freefoodwww.totalfree.at
 
2006-02-08 12:43:50 AM
And then we wonder why there's a brain drain.
 
2006-02-08 12:44:18 AM
American Taliban!
 
2006-02-08 12:44:20 AM
Science really needs better lobbyists in D.C.

By that I mean *you*, all of you. If you love it, please, write a brief note or make a phone call to your representative expressing your desire to support it. That really helps.
 
2006-02-08 12:46:13 AM
Mordant: That explains why you are such an anti-Bush "Independent".

This thread explains why I look to sources other than blogs for my information.

Forgive me for making light of this horrible incident which was only partially reported by this blog.
 
2006-02-08 12:47:19 AM
puuukeey:

Now that's the real question.
 
2006-02-08 12:48:03 AM
It's not like it had an embedded link to The Oregoinian article it was referring to in there or anything.

Oh wait.
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2006-02-08 12:48:16 AM
Bush hates Oregon State University because their football players hang out with gay sheep.
 
2006-02-08 12:49:25 AM
Abagadro: It's not like it had an embedded link to The Oregoinian article it was referring to in there or anything.

It's not like anyone on FARK even bothers to get past the flamebait headlines submitted.
 
2006-02-08 12:51:00 AM
See, kiddies! There's LOTS of ways to suppress or censor things without relying on nasty ol' imprisonment.
 
2006-02-08 12:52:08 AM
I'm sure this kid's research on trees is gripping the entire Bush administration with fear.

Or maybe just that one guy who works for the DoE.
 
2006-02-08 12:52:43 AM
picpop.com
 
2006-02-08 12:54:34 AM
GraphicAddiction: This thread explains why I look to sources other than blogs for my information.

Forgive me for making light of this horrible incident which was only partially reported by this blog.




No doubt blogs are questionable sources, but Science is a peer reviewed journal. I, therefore, assume the research has some merit and would warrent further investigation.
 
2006-02-08 12:55:46 AM
Actually, from what I'm hearing (being an OSU student), the peer review part of this paper was... let me just say, lacking.
 
2006-02-08 12:55:54 AM
Mordant,

That explains why you are such an anti-Bush "Independent".

Dude, you'll be better off just putting him on your ignore list like I have.

He's nothing more than a punk-ass little biatch who comes into threads critical of this administration and makes snide comments.

Save the bandwidth for pictures from Foobies.
 
2006-02-08 12:57:26 AM
Scrophulous Barking Duck: Science is a peer reviewed journal. I, therefore, assume the research has some merit and would warrent further investigation.

The whole situation appears to need further investigation beyond "Bushie am teh evil cuz da blog sez so."
 
2006-02-08 12:57:48 AM
Mordant: That explains why you are such an anti-Bush "Independent".

I'm not so sure that being ambivalent toward Bush, instead of adopting the "property concept of ideas", is an insult. Not that you can read this, cause you already ignored me. :)
 
2006-02-08 12:58:29 AM
SchlingFo: He's nothing more than a punk-ass little biatch who comes into threads critical of this administration and makes snide comments.

That ladies and gentlemen, was pure gold.
 
2006-02-08 12:59:37 AM
GraphicAddiction: Forgive me for making light of this horrible incident which was only partially reported by this blog.


I not only forgive (which isn't necessary), but I applaud and praise your consistent non-Partisan support of truth and honesty.

One day, if anyone other than the evil "Libs" actually tell lies... I count on folks like you to point it out. God Bless you for being a true American.

Stupid, lying Dems.
 
2006-02-08 12:59:38 AM
Ooh, ooh... I can play:

Alternative Blog Represented as News:

Bush Adminstration puts uppity grad student disagreeing with his professors in place... Again

From today's "Oregonian," yet another story about people who are so blind with rage over real and controversial issues, such as the farking war and farking religeon, that they'll accept whole cloth some blogger's comments without reading the actual article:

The federal government has abruptly suspended funding for Oregon State University research that concluded federally sponsored logging after the 2002 Biscuit fire in southwest Oregon set back the recovery of forests.

[cut to]

The research, led by a 29-year-old graduate student, already had come under attack within OSU's College of Forestry by professors who contend that logging and replanting speed recovery of burned forests.

[cut to]

Federal officials said the publication appeared to violate the terms of the research funding awarded by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management through a federal Joint Fire Science program.

They suggested an online version of the report could be seen as illegally trying to influence federal legislation because it mentioned a bill co-sponsored by Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., to speed logging after fires. They also said the scientists had not consulted with the BLM before publishing their report or included a disclaimer saying the conclusions do not represent a government opinion.

The BLM outlined the points in a letter to Oregon State last week and gave the university until Wednesday to respond.

The BLM suspended funding until the response is received "and any corrective actions if necessary are taken by OSU."


Yeah, that fark-head personally Bush did this himself because he hates nature almost as much as he loves the Lord. Praise Jesus someone is attacking science and this grad student's obviously incompetent science professors by temporarily suspending funding.

Can we go back to real issues now?!?
 
2006-02-08 12:59:43 AM
Is GA here? If so Mordant, I second SchlingFo's idea. He's a whiny attention whore of the first caliber. Threads are much easier to read and enjoy since I put him on ignore.
 
2006-02-08 01:01:54 AM
In other news, anyone know how to make Questron work at VirtualApple.org? Ultima rip-off or not, I loved that game.
 
2006-02-08 01:02:12 AM
puffy999: Actually, from what I'm hearing (being an OSU student), the peer review part of this paper was... let me just say, lacking.

That's an interesting possibility.

It could be much worse (to me) when scientists have a hidden agenda. I hope it isn't the case (the peer review can be skewed, as you may know).
 
2006-02-08 01:02:33 AM
And the article/headline is 100% flamebait. Go find a real article about this.

/hates Bush
 
2006-02-08 01:02:41 AM
Dr. Fey,

Now that's funny.

See, folks. It's possible to flame and criticize articles while still being funny and entertaining :)
 
2006-02-08 01:05:44 AM
DisneyOnIce: Is GA here? If so Mordant, I second SchlingFo's idea. He's a whiny attention whore of the first caliber. Threads are much easier to read and enjoy since I put him on ignore.

But so much less entertaining. He actually believes he's "independent". I turned off ignore for the comic value.
 
2006-02-08 01:07:40 AM
In other news, Bush won't restore funding until Oregon State changes their immoral mascot name.
 
2006-02-08 01:09:05 AM
I found both the blog entry and the article from the Oregonian lacking in details.

From the article:
The research, led by a 29-year-old graduate student, already had come under attack within OSU's College of Forestry by professors who contend that logging and replanting speed recovery of burned forests.

But no mention of why it had come under attack. Was there a problem with the conclusion or was there a problem with the research?

Also from the article:
They (the U.S. Bureau of Land Management) also said the scientists had not consulted with the BLM before publishing their report or included a disclaimer saying the conclusions do not represent a government opinion.

Is "consulting" with a government agency a standard part of a federal research grant? Did they know in advance that they were required to provide a disclaimer?
 
2006-02-08 01:09:28 AM
SchlingFo,

Thanks; we aim to please.

/Nice to still see other old school submitters hanging out.
 
2006-02-08 01:10:14 AM
SchlingFo: e's nothing more than a punk-ass little biatch who comes into threads critical of this administration and makes snide comments.

Which is my job.
 
2006-02-08 01:11:27 AM
Here is an article that goes into a bit more depth about why people are upset.

If what the professor(s) at OSU says is true, then yes... this should have never made it into a science journal worth it's weight.

I don't know whether or not the results may have been correct. But I DO know how to spot a study that's lacking in information (of course, my limited experience with scientific studies tends to be more on the human side with double-blind testing and such). And again, IF some of these things (soil types, slopes, etc) were ignored in the study... it's pretty useless. More research needed.
 
2006-02-08 01:18:39 AM
Dr. Fey,

Thanks; we aim to please.

You're welcome :)

tarrant,

Which is my job.

Yeah, but you give good HR advice to the TFers. So we kind of let it slide.... ;)

On topic,

I'm betting there's a lot more here than meets the eye.

Federal grants can have an enormous number of strings attached to them. It's very easy to go outside the "rules" set out by the government and face the possibility of having your funding pulled.

My guess is that the grad student went outside the parameters set down by the Feds.

Just my guess, though.
 
2006-02-08 01:19:48 AM
Yay! The chart makes an appearance. I love GA's argument of "Who do you believe, me or your lying eyes?"

Puffy99

Thanks for that article. It seems pretty clear that the article was peer-reviewed by Science. I wouldn't be surprised that professors at OSU (whose complaint seems to be that there are possible intervening variables unaccounted for) would be unhappy as this might jeopardize a lot of funding for the department considering how things are going in the world of federally funded science these days. Seems like a CYA move (especially since it was in conjunction with the Forestry Service who obviously has a bit of an axe to grind here), but that is only a bit of speculation on my part.
 
2006-02-08 01:20:35 AM
Yup, he's here.

GraphicAddiction: I'm not here to entertain people who are supposed to be ignoring me.

And doing a damn fine job in the "not entertaing" department, as usual.
 
2006-02-08 01:21:27 AM
Funny that no one mentioned that one of the faculty who tried to block the publication had done a study that reached the opposite conclusion (i.e. salvage logging is good for the forest) and that the forestry department at OSU receives 20 or 25 percent of its budget from the timber industry.
 
2006-02-08 01:26:24 AM
Mordant: Still, go F*ck yourself.

Ah, ever the snappy comeback. This little propaganda piece has been torn to shreds and all you can do is get ugly.
 
2006-02-08 01:29:26 AM
From what I read, the funding issue came about as a result of a lack of peer review (which, from what I've seen, may be the case...).
Understand, these things are to be reviewed by professors and others, not just people in a magazine. If what I hear is correct, the BLM, which offered the grant, requires a BLMemployee to review papers before being submitted to science journals.
However, I've also seen mentions of rules against "lobbying Congress" using grant money like this... which is a COMPLETE joke, and does make me wonder if this is not politically motivated.

Frankly, this is a case of believing who you want to believe regarding the research. But again, if what I read about not including things like slope and soil type is true... then I honestly think this shouldn't be published by any 'journal'...
I'm completely unfamiliar with the work of Science Journal (though I've heard they have some short articles). Is this something you could compare to, say, the JAMA? Or is this just some magazine created to sell, and give you small portions of big research projects?
 
2006-02-08 01:30:53 AM
DisneyOnIce: And doing a damn fine job in the "not entertaing" department, as usual.

Want some cheese with that whine? Your personal bullshiat is far from entertaining.

This article is crap. And thanks to the ever present, self appointed FARK thread police, this thread is a total trainwreck.
 
Displayed 50 of 77 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report