March for Science

Written By: - Date published: 12:12 am, April 21st, 2017 - 100 comments
Categories: activism, science - Tags: , , , ,

In the world of post-truth politics, science is under attack. The March for Science is an international movement to fight back:

The March for Science is the first step of a global movement to defend the vital role science plays in our health, safety, economies, and governments.

It’s time to get off the sidelines and make a difference.

The March for Science champions robustly funded and publicly communicated science as a pillar of human freedom and prosperity. We unite as a diverse, nonpartisan group to call for science that upholds the common good and for political leaders and policy makers to enact evidence based policies in the public interest.

The March for Science is a celebration of science. It’s not only about scientists and politicians; it is about the very real role that science plays in each of our lives and the need to respect and encourage research that gives us insight into the world.

Nevertheless, the march has generated a great deal of conversation around whether or not scientists should involve themselves in politics. In the face of an alarming trend toward discrediting scientific consensus and restricting scientific discovery, we might ask instead: can we afford not to speak out in its defense?

There is no Planet B. Join the #MarchForScience.

March for Science NZ is on Twitter, Facebook, and and the web:

Science, not silence

We, the people, march for science and knowledge to be reaffirmed as fundamental to the democratic decision making that supports society in Aotearoa New Zealand.

We add our voices to the chorus supporting US and international scientists who oppose recent political events that damage and undermine science and its use in the public interest.

We stand in solidarity with those academics, scientists, and public servants in Turkey and the US (and other places) whose expertise is questioned because it is politically expedient to do so.

We gather together, as citizens of the planet, to march on Earth Day, 22 April 2017, as planned changes to the management and storage of climate change data in the US, and attempts to silence scientists, have brought the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight.
…
Climate change, earthquake resilience and freshwater quality are only a few of the serious issues that depend on science and knowledge to protect the New Zealand public: it is not for scientists that we march, but to protect and insist on the ways in which science and knowledge are a shared human good. Scientists are often uncomfortable with making political protests, in the belief that scientific evidence should not be affected by political choices. There may be a range of policy positions and prioritisations that are rational responses to scientific data – for example the kinds of policy choices that will be necessary in formulating a global response to the problem of climate change. However: political decisions to ignore or undermine the provision of scientific data require a response.

We believe that the March for Science in New Zealand must be non-partisan. We welcome participants from, and supporters of, any political party in New Zealand – what we march for is the ability to make good, long-term policy through multi-lateral agreement, on the basis of respect for knowledge and evidence. To move towards this goal, we need to stand for the values of science – together. We wish to absolutely clear that the March is open to all who care about what science stands for – both nationally and internationally.

On this day we ask all political parties and employers of scientists and researchers to commit to honour the principles of scientific integrity.

The NZ events are:

Auckland
The Auckland March will take place in the afternoon of the 22 April, from the bottom of Queen St to the Albert Park Band Rotunda. More details TBC – please check the Facebook event!

Wellington
The Wellington March will end at … where else?  The Beehive.  Watch the Facebook event for more information.

palmerston north
Meeting 11 am, The Square – more details to come on the Facebook event page

Christchurch
The Christchurch March will be from 10 am, from outside the Canterbury Museum, down Worchester Street, to Cathedral Square. More on Facebook

dunedin
The Dunedin event will be at Otago Museum Reserve from 11am-2pm, with music, a science show, food, speakers and more! Check Facebook for more details of the programme.

queenstown
In Queenstown, there will be a distinctly Wakatipu event – stay tuned for updates.

Governments and vested interests can try and ignore facts, but it won’t end well. Facts will have the last laugh. Get along to an event near you if you can, and stand up for science!

Further coverage:
March for Science: Organisers look to the positive
NZ scientists: why we march this Saturday
Thousands to march for science on Saturday

https://twitter.com/ScienceMarch_NZ/status/852663983391637505

100 comments on “March for Science ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. NZJester 1
    21 April 2017 at 3:36 am

    In the US Science is also under attack in some of their schools with Darwinism made illegal to teach in favor of creationism by schools and states under the thumb of right-wing Christians. Religious zealots have always tried to deny science. A lot of those same people that deny climate change also deny the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection.

    • saveNZ 1.1
      21 April 2017 at 8:08 am

      That is what happens with Charter schools!

      Coming to a NZ town near you with the Natz, along with alternative facts and statistics from housing to water quality!

      • dukeofurl 1.1.1
        21 April 2017 at 8:40 am

        I saw a TV program recently about ‘wild animals’, the usual sort of thing. But was talking changes in generations due ‘lamarckism’- the discredited alternative to darwinism.
        They didnt use that word, but suggested that certain desirable traits were ‘handed down from parent to offspring’
        Of course its random mutations that offspring have that are favoured for their species advantage. ( I hope I have that explanation right)

        • simbit 1.1.1.1
          21 April 2017 at 11:12 am

          Actually the most exciting thing in biological ‘inheritance’ is epigenetic transfer. Lamark was right, just didn’t know why…

          • dukeofurl 1.1.1.1.1
            21 April 2017 at 12:10 pm

            Im surprised by that . This is way outside my basic knowledge so I looked up some reliable info.
            Seems Epigenetics means different things to different people
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4391566/
            ‘Understanding why some genes are turned on or off is certainly less mysterious now than when the field of epigenetics was born, largely because of the identification of regulatory gene–gene and gene–protein interactions. These findings go a long way to explain the changes in gene expression that Waddington termed epigenetics,…”

            • simbit 1.1.1.1.1.1
              21 April 2017 at 1:33 pm

              Oh I’m not defending Lamarck, that was a little facetious of me. In my field (DRR and emergency management) we have been hearing evidence of intergenerational transfer of trauma. I’m outta NZ now but there was an article on earthquake babies who were in utero in 2011. Similar thing (but not claiming that is technically epigenetic transfer).

              • Incognito …
                22 April 2017 at 9:13 pm

                The Liggins Institute has been beating the drum for years now that what happens in the womb is a determining factor for the rest of your life, at least the first years of it.

                During early life, both in the womb and in the early years of postnatal development, the environment interacts with the genome to determine life-long disease risk. Understanding how the environment alters gene expression, for example through epigenetic modifications to the genome, could help us design interventions to decrease the risk of disease in later life.

                http://www.liggins.auckland.ac.nz/en/about/research-themes/determinants-of-a-healthy-life.html

          • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1.2
            21 April 2017 at 12:14 pm

            Epigentics is the way that the same gene responds to different environmental factors.

            • The New Student 1.1.1.1.2.1
              22 April 2017 at 5:51 pm

              I must correct you slightly DTB: you are describing plain old gene regulation, which includes sequence-specific mechanisms of control. I was taught that epigenetics implies sequence-independent mechanisms of gene regulation. I say imply because “Some employ epigenetics to explain changes in gene expression, others use it to refer to transgenerational effects and/or inherited expression states” (Deans & Maggert, 2015)

              The genetic code of a given organism is a book, each gene has its own separate chapter. Limiting who has access to which chapter, and at what time they may access that chapter, even how much of that chapter may be accessed, is gene regulation. Some of these access mechanisms depend on the actual content of the chapter in question (sequence-dependent), while others do not (sequence-independent; epigenetic). All access mechanisms, sequence-dependent or otherwise, are influenced by environmental cues.

              While ‘epigenetics’ has unfortunately acquired buzzword status, It is great that this subject is being talked about so widely. It is up to the scientific community to get on with it and nail down some concrete definitions, so that both non- and scientists may be clearly informed, rather than confused. Not doing so does us all a bit of a disservice.

              BTW the cite is the link given by Duke of Earl, good read.

              This one is ok: opinionated, but a simple explanation referencing a critical analysis published in Cell: http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/03/end_the_hype_over_epigenetics__lamarckian_evolution.html

              • Incognito …
                22 April 2017 at 9:01 pm

                Epigenetics is very complex, hard to study, but immensely fascinating.

                For example, there are anti-cancer drugs that act at the epigenetic level by switching on genes that have been silenced through epigenetic changes such as DNA methylation – the drugs are DNA methylation inhibitors. The switch-on acts as a trigger on other genes and so on to kill the cancer cells.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demethylating_agent

          • Incognito 1.1.1.1.3
            21 April 2017 at 11:59 pm

            If you have time on your hands, are truly interested, and have a scientific background:

            Lamarck rises from his grave: parental environment-induced epigenetic inheritance in model organisms and humans

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/brv.12322/full

      • tuppence shrewsbury 1.1.2
        22 April 2017 at 11:40 am

        Have you got a single shred of proof for that statement? has a single charter school in New Zealand taught creationism instead of darwinism? sounds

        We don’t have the same fundamental religious stupidity in New Zealand as the states does. There is a pragmatic streak far too common and wide in all New Zealanders for creationism to be accepted over darwinism. I’d believe that all humans aren’t created equal is taught in some schools in New Zealand however.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.2.1
          22 April 2017 at 5:57 pm

          all humans aren’t created equal

          In a universe (such as this one) where your height, hair colour, and gender significantly affect your earning potential, manifestly, they are not.

          In a universe (such as this one) where your educational potential depends upon your parents’ income, manifestly, they are not.

          Perhaps you are referring to some as yet non-existent Utopia.

          • tuppence shrewsbury 1.1.2.1.1
            22 April 2017 at 6:20 pm

            ah the words of a short, fat ugly man. taking your anger out on the keyboard again in a fit of rage that the world has dealt you and unfair hand?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.2.1.1.1
              24 April 2017 at 5:49 am

              Since you asked, no, I’m quite content with my personal situation.

              It seems to me that my rebuttal has upset you and now you are lashing out, attacking me, because you haven’t got an argument.

              You could have said that despite accidents of birth, people are equal before the law, for example, but no, you decided to throw a tanty instead 🙂

    • Draco T Bastard 1.2
      21 April 2017 at 12:10 pm

      Religious zealots have always tried to deny science.

      Actually, in their early years both Xianity and Islam were both in the forefront of scientific discovery. It has only been in the last few centuries that that has reversed to the point where they’re now denying the conclusions of science. This is because science, as it developed, pretty much proved a lot of their basic assumptions wrong.

      • DoublePlusGood 1.2.1
        21 April 2017 at 2:07 pm

        Well, they’ve also been on the forefront of opposing science, as Bruno and Galileo attest to.

      • NZJester 1.2.2
        21 April 2017 at 5:00 pm

        Well I did say “Religious zealots” and not Christians or Muslim in my statement as there is a lot of difference between a True Christian or Muslim and Zealot who claims to be Christian or Muslim. Some of those right-wing so-called Christians in the US are terrorists, bigots or Nazis hiding behind a false claim to be Christian. They search the religious texts for the slightest thing they can claim is a reason to discriminate, while ignoring the vast amount of information saying why you should not discriminate. They forgive people in their circle for adultery, spouse abuse, sexually abusing children and committing murder but say it is totally unforgivable for people to be gay.

  2. Stunned mullet 2
    21 April 2017 at 7:29 am

    I wonder if there’ll be a looney counter protest from the climate change deniers, anti fluoridation nutters and the anti immunization whoopsees ?

    • gsays 2.2
      21 April 2017 at 8:33 am

      It’s funny you should say that, when reading the post, my first thought was some scientists have been pioneers in post truth behaviour.

    • One Two 2.3
      21 April 2017 at 10:07 am

      I suspect you know little to nothing about the three subjects you used as a prop, to illustrate the level you’re at…

      Looney, deniers, nutters

      That’s your level!

      • stunned mullet 2.3.1
        21 April 2017 at 10:35 am

        I suspect you interfere with goats.

        • McFlock 2.3.1.1
          21 April 2017 at 2:24 pm

          That’s just operating at a higher level, you lack the cognizance to understand…

      • Draco T Bastard 2.3.2
        21 April 2017 at 12:25 pm

        No, that would be the level of the nutters as in the fact that they really don’t know what they’re talking about.

    • tuppence shrewsbury 2.4
      22 April 2017 at 11:44 am

      Most people who believe that humans are not the sole cause of climate change would refuse to be associated the anti fluoride and anti vaxx bunch. Those two causes practise science akin to creationism.

      Debating the cause of climate change doesn’t make people nuts or wrong, just sceptical of being told about “consensus”. It’s not the same as incontrovertible facts.

  3. saveNZ 3
    21 April 2017 at 9:40 am

    It’s the manipulation of Science (often by governments and corporations) that needs to come under scrutiny.

    • dukeofurl 3.1
      21 April 2017 at 10:29 am

      I remember well from one of my classes at a 3rd year level at university, the Professor was adamant a particular textbook was ‘wrong’ on some item. Recent lectures could be saying ‘both were wrong ‘?

      Scientists will often disagree on many things but saveNZ is right when there is outright manipulation by government of science.

      Nick Smiths travesty of truth over the swim- able/wade-able rivers was the most recent example

    • simbit 3.2
      21 April 2017 at 1:41 pm

      Anyone remember Peter Gluckman finding cold and flu medicine- the stuff that actually worked (ie with the pseudoephedrine) – should be banned as it was a precursor to methamphetamine? I mean he was right but sheez, didn’t stop the manufacturing of P and the average citizen loses a good medicine.

      • Andre 3.2.1
        21 April 2017 at 4:19 pm

        However it did improve quality of life and workplace safety for pharmacists who no longer had to deal with lowlifes trying to get pseudoephedrine by any means.

        That full legalisation of all psychoactive substances is a much better way to tackle that problem is a whole separate argument.

        • simbit 3.2.1.1
          22 April 2017 at 2:17 am

          While I’d hesitate to label pseudoephedrine hunters ‘lowlifes’ – poor people in a bad situation – by that argument we should get rid of bar sales so barstaff aren’t subject to abuse.

          But yes, a revamp of legislation on things that make you hmmmm is needed.

  4. Bill 4
    21 April 2017 at 10:46 am

    Get the profit motive completely removed from funding considerations and burn down any and all who would gag those seeking to pass on scientific knowledge, or who would seek to diminish or confuse the message from science and scientists by trundling out any thoroughly dishonest and politically motivated concept of ‘balance’.

    • weka 4.1
      21 April 2017 at 11:16 am

      There goes most medical research. But then given how much medical research is now corrupted we could probably do a with a big drop in quantity if it meant an improvement in quality.

      • Bill 4.1.1
        21 April 2017 at 11:49 am

        That’s faulty logic. Not having profit as a determinant factor for funding does not mean that funding doesn’t go to potentially profitable research.

        I also think you’d have to explain what you mean by ‘corrupted’. I suspect you’re confusing the unscientific use of scientific data or method (by business, or corporates or who-ever) with scientific data.

        Scientific findings can be wrong and can be disproved or improved upon – it’s kind of what ‘scientific endeavour’ is all about.

        Mis-using scientific findings or misapplying a scientific method is a completely different kettle of fish that’s driven, not by a quest for knowledge or understanding, but (often) a quest for profit or influence. (A lot of the pseudo -scientific shite to do with diet or drugs, to pick two examples, falls under the mis-use category)

        • weka 4.1.1.1
          21 April 2017 at 12:02 pm

          “I also think you’d have to explain what you mean by ‘corrupted’. I suspect you’re confusing the unscientific use of scientific data or method (by business, or corporates or who-ever) with scientific data.”

          Nope. It’s a very well known phenomena that medical science is rife with corruption at the researcher and peer review level. Some might object to that particular descriptor, but ‘fake science’ is an actual thing. I’ll post examples when I get a moment.

          “Not having profit as a determinant factor for funding does not mean that funding doesn’t go to potentially profitable research.”

          Not sure what you mean there. Profit is the major determiner of the quantity of medical research. If you mean that the govt or NGOs could fund more research than they already do and that could then be used to generate monetary profit, I’m not sure what the point is. I’m using the word profit here to mean excess wealth for the sake of accumulating wealth.

          • Grafton Gully 4.1.1.1.1
            21 April 2017 at 7:04 pm

            The Cochrane Collaboration does not use “fake science”.

            http://www.cochrane.org/

          • Incognito 4.1.1.1.2
            22 April 2017 at 12:03 am

            I’m most interested in your examples.

          • AB 4.1.1.1.3
            22 April 2017 at 8:49 am

            I’m assuming Weka you mean the influence of pharma industry money in determining what research gets done, how trials are designed and how the results get reported. Agree with that, but I do think that we should distinguish the clinical trial methodology itself from its corrupt application.
            The methodology itself is very useful.

            • weka 4.1.1.1.3.1
              22 April 2017 at 9:30 am

              I agree, although if the methodology is able to be corrupted in this way, then there is something seriously wrong with the culture and probably the methodology. I’d have less of a problem if people stopped holding it up as the gold standard and instead saw it as one of a range of tools that is useful or not depending on how it is used. Then we can look at which research is valid and which isn’t instead of having to wade through so much denial about the problems.

              • Incognito …
                22 April 2017 at 11:32 am

                Medical research is not simply running trials. For example, check out the research funded by the Auckland Medical Research Foundation:

                http://www.medicalresearch.org.nz/

                Please show some evidence that pharma industry money determines what research gets done here in New Zealand and why this is problematic.

                • weka …
                  22 April 2017 at 12:20 pm

                  I haven’t said that medical research is only running trials. Nor have I made any claims about NZ.

                  • Incognito …
                    22 April 2017 at 12:52 pm

                    Then please explain yourself better. You made some statements such as “It’s a very well known phenomena that medical science is rife with corruption” and “but ‘fake science’ is an actual thing”.

                    You also said “I’m using the word profit here to mean excess wealth for the sake of accumulating wealth”. If this doesn’t imply pharma industry I don’t know what it does imply.

                    AB connected this to running trials with pharma influence and you agreed, or should I say you didn’t disagree.

                    I am asking you and AB for clarification and the promised examples and how this is relevant to the situation here in New Zealand. I think these are perfectly legitimate questions given what you have said so far particularly today.

                    • weka …
                      22 April 2017 at 1:25 pm

                      I’m thinking about doing a post on it, so I have something I can refer back to. But honestly, the problems with medical science are so well known and written about by medical science writers that I’m reluctant to start dropping links to someone who appears to not be even aware of the problem. Yes my language is blunt and it’s possible someone may want to pull me up on that, but the basic premises are not in dispute.

                      Of course big pharma influences what research gets down. Drug research in particular is expensive and big pharma exist because of that. I’m not even sure why I would need to back that up.

                      “and the promised examples and how this is relevant to the situation here in New Zealand.”

                      Who has said anything about NZ other than you?

                    • The New Student …
                      22 April 2017 at 7:36 pm

                      RetractionWatch is always an interesting read:
                      http://retractionwatch.com/

                    • weka …
                      22 April 2017 at 9:05 pm

                      that will shatter a few illusions.

                  • Incognito …
                    22 April 2017 at 9:49 pm

                    Sorry weka, I probably come across as an ignorant belligerent fool but all I am asking is for you to support your claims and use less sloppy imprecise language. You also seem to be rather convinced (!) of your own ideas on medical research, etc., so I look forward to your post on it. If you like I am happy to assist by proofreading, for example.

                    You said @ 4.1.1.1 “I’ll post examples when I get a moment”. These are the examples I have repeatedly asked for and they remain elusive but it can wait till your post.

                    Yes, it was me who asked for the New Zealand context, if possible. If you cannot provide a local context that’s fine too but since we live in this country you could make it more relevant for the Kiwis who read TS.

                    Retraction Watch is awesome reading but is perhaps not quite what you think. If you read their first post you’ll be better informed; they are no corruption hunters as such:

                    Retractions are born of many mothers. Fraud is the most titillating reason, and mercifully the most rare, but when it happens the results can be devastating.

                    …

                    First, science takes justifiable pride in the fact that it is self-correcting — most of the time. Usually, that just means more or better data, not fraud or mistakes that would require a retraction.

                    …

                    If highlighting retractions will give journalists more tools to uncover fraud and misuse of funds, we’re happy to help.[all bolds are mine]

                    http://retractionwatch.com/2010/08/03/why-write-a-blog-about-retractions/

  5. Psycho Milt 5
    21 April 2017 at 12:27 pm

    Excellent. Hopefully the take-up will extend far enough for the Green Party to become willing to listen to scientists about genetic engineering. It would be a shame to swap out a science-hostile National government for a Labour/Green one with its own science-hostile features.

    • One Two 5.1
      21 April 2017 at 2:40 pm

      Should they ‘listen’ to the scientists on the payroll and research funding ‘grants’ from Monsanto, Syngenta et al?

      Those ‘scientists’ ?

      Likey to be the same ‘scientists’ who have duped the likes of yourself, because you know…’the science’ and stuff!

      • stunned mullet 5.1.1
        21 April 2017 at 4:02 pm

        There are clearly various levels of evidence varying from very large data set peer reviewed findings of significance down to the ravings or persons like yourself and Colonic Viper on the interwebs.

      • Psycho Milt 5.1.2
        21 April 2017 at 5:28 pm

        Should they ‘listen’ to the scientists on the payroll and research funding ‘grants’ from Monsanto, Syngenta et al?

        If the research stacks up. However, most of the NZ scientists they should listen to about genetic engineering are working for publicly funded research institutes and universities, which shouldn’t be a problem.

        • gsays 5.1.2.1
          21 April 2017 at 9:40 pm

          Hi PM,
          The scientists that have you believing this?

          “The dairy cows don’t have to be – glyphosate is a herbicide, it has very low toxicity as far as animals are concerned. The water table isn’t likely to be affected either. Which is why it’s a common practice.”

          • Psycho Milt 5.1.2.1.1
            21 April 2017 at 10:32 pm

            Toxicity isn’t a matter of belief, it’s measurable and is measured.

            • simbit 5.1.2.1.1.1
              22 April 2017 at 2:24 am

              It was Paracelsus – a habitual pisshead according to Wikipedia – who gave us insight into what toxicity is (ie dose-dependent), it is subjective by which I mean different genomes of the same species will have different tolerance. I’d imagine different ecosystems will have different tolerance to, say, Roundup.

              It’s complicated. Science is a constellation of methods for unpacking complexity. And science is a social activity. I’ve met lots of scientists, hell, I’M a scientist. We’re just people. I’m sure Shakespeare sez it better somewhere…

              • Psycho Milt …
                22 April 2017 at 7:16 am

                I guess “measurable” makes it sound more precise than it is, but even blunt-instrument stuff like LD50 is a measurement. And Roundup especially has had the shit measured out of it, because hippies.

                • Incognito …
                  22 April 2017 at 11:44 am

                  Strictly speaking, LD50 is not measured but calculated/estimated from empirical data.

                  Many so-called ‘measurements’ are actually derived from actual empirical data. For example, take speed; you cannot measure speed as such but you can measure distance travelled per given time and divide the two. Heisenberg had something interesting to say about that 😉

                  All measurements come with measurement errors and these propagate into derived ‘measures’ and so on.

                  • Andre …
                    22 April 2017 at 11:59 am

                    Oh Christ, a metrology pedant.

                    • Incognito …
                      22 April 2017 at 12:23 pm

                      And your point is Andre? Ironic that you have call upon JC. I presume you’re not marching today.

                    • Andre …
                      22 April 2017 at 12:35 pm

                      If I’ve ever had a more painfully boring task than shepherding a product through OIML certification, I’ve successfully suppressed the memory.

                      Facebook sez the Auckland march has been cancelled.

                    • Incognito …
                      22 April 2017 at 1:16 pm

                      I can honestly say I have never had to experience what you had to with metrology but I am still puzzled why you called me names. Never mind, let’s move on, shall we?

                      I did not know you’re based in Auckland, did I?

        • KJT 5.1.2.2
          21 April 2017 at 10:04 pm

          Psychic. Are you aware of how science funding works in New Zealand, these days?
          Yet another right wing fuckup.

          • Psycho Milt 5.1.2.2.1
            21 April 2017 at 10:37 pm

            I am aware of how science funding works in NZ, yes. And y’all are illustrating my point nicely – science denial is rife on both the left and the right, and involves pretty much the same tactics.

            • KJT 5.1.2.2.1.1
              22 April 2017 at 6:41 pm

              You will be aware then, that funding depends on the perceived value of future commercial applications. I.E. “If it don’t make money”, it is not funded.

              • Psycho Milt …
                22 April 2017 at 10:29 pm

                Sometimes that’s the main criterion, yes. Sometimes it isn’t a criterion at all, especially in the universities. And that’s true of science as a whole, not just genetic engineering. You did notice the OP was about a march in support of science, right? The march is in response to politicians rejecting science that doesn’t suit their agenda – which side of that fight do you want to be on?

    • KJT 5.2
      21 April 2017 at 10:01 pm

      Some of us look at who funds and controls the research, as well as the conclusions.
      Admittedly, that is difficult when so much is paywalled in journals.

      • McFlock 5.2.1
        21 April 2017 at 10:23 pm

        Could maybe go old school and visit a library?

      • Incognito 5.2.2
        22 April 2017 at 12:14 am

        Please enlighten us as to what some of us have concluded.

        • KJT 5.2.2.1
          22 April 2017 at 6:38 pm

          That who pays for research, the size and design of the study, sample size and per-conceptions need to be taken into account, when assessing the accuracy of reported results.

          For example, a sample of 100 saying coffee is bad for you, funded by a tea company, is much less likely to be unbiased and accurate, than something like the Dunedin longitudinal study.

          Unfortunately, the general public doesn’t have easy access to the journal articles that detail this information. (though, they should have as so much is State funded). They are forced to rely on “Journalists”, and web sites, who are often profoundly ignorant, about the science they are reporting.

          Research on GMO’s is mostly funded by companies who stand to benefit from it.
          A cautionary approach, as the Greens advocate, is totally sensible in the light of our incomplete knowledge.

          Different from the right wings persistence with an economic and social approach, which has failed in the real world for over 30 years, to deliver the claimed results.
          That is truly ignoring evidence!

          • One Anonymous Bloke 5.2.2.1.1
            22 April 2017 at 7:26 pm

            That who pays for research, the size and design of the study, sample size and per-conceptions need to be taken into account, when assessing the accuracy of reported results.

            And? If there’s one thing that anti-vaxxers (or say, Rodney Hide) teach us it’s that individuals are very very shit at assessing the accuracy of available science.

            On the one hand you’ve the conflicts of interest inherent in the funding model, and on the other, the conflicts of interest inherent in wishful reckons (often inspired by people who want to sell you a book, or a seat at one of eg: Mr. Andrew Wakefield’s speaking engagements).

            Academic papers routinely list the authors’ potential conflicts of interest. Wishful dupes, not so much.

          • Psycho Milt 5.2.2.1.2
            22 April 2017 at 10:34 pm

            Research on GMO’s is mostly funded by companies who stand to benefit from it.

            Not in this country it ain’t. To the extent that it happens at all, due to fervent opposition from renowned irrationalists like Steffan Browning, it’s carried out almost entirely by public institutions.

          • Incognito 5.2.2.1.3
            22 April 2017 at 10:54 pm

            Hi KJT,

            Thanks for your reply; I was not expecting one TBH.

            Acknowledging where the funding came from and declaring potential conflicts of interest do not, by themselves, make a published study more or less biased or accurate. It is simply a signal for editors, reviewers, and all the readers that there may have been other factors that may have influenced parts of the published study and/or that there may have been bias that has not been appropriately controlled and adjusted for.

            Most self-respecting and reputable scientific journals have it as mandatory policy to acknowledge funding source(s) and declare potential conflicts of interest. In addition, they often demand an author contribution, e.g. who did what for the study.

            Access to scientific articles has been a huge problem also for academic institutions because of the very expensive subscriptions. As you correctly point out this is indefensible given that much of the research is funded through Public Good funds, i.e. (in)directly by the Taxpayers.

            There certainly have been actions to address this, e.g. PubMed Central https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ and you may want to read their FAQ, especially this one https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/faq/#q17

            And then there’s Open Access https://sparcopen.org/open-access/

            So, it is not all bad but there is always room for improvement! The scientific publishers have a lot to answer for and arguably they wield as much if not more power than pharma industry on what studies get undertaken and published, etc. The publishers also have a role to play in the quality control of the published work; a role they have been somewhat reluctant to accept.

            Lastly, your statement about GMOs with regard to the funders is misguided, especially in New Zealand. GMOs have become a major tool and model in biomedical research and this is clearly not “mostly funded by companies who stand to benefit from it”. Most likely you have something more specific in mind but you should articulate this with more precise language rather than using hand waving statements that obfuscate issues.

  6. One Anonymous Bloke 6
    21 April 2017 at 6:57 pm

    I’d prefer scientists figured out how to destroy right wing behaviour rather than marching in protest of it.

  7. Augustus 7
    21 April 2017 at 7:28 pm

    Some are trying

    Edit: Meant as a reply to 6

    • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1
      21 April 2017 at 7:38 pm

      Lucky individuals get lucky. Meanwhile, right wing behaviour costs lives.

      • BM 7.1.1
        21 April 2017 at 7:42 pm

        You’re such an old bore.

        I do wonder if you’re not a bot though, a serious amount of repetition in your postings.

        Blah blah something about the amygdala, end, repeat.

      • Johan 7.1.2
        21 April 2017 at 8:43 pm

        Yes indeed, there must be some medication for all these RWNJ with their reptilian brains. A good dose should to shrink this overly active greed center to normal.

  8. timeforacupoftea 8
    22 April 2017 at 8:35 pm

    More likely a activist march for public purse, suck on gov’t tit, meanwhile our children starve and no warm dry night shelter.