I think individual scientists who work for the government can be excellent, for example, the researchers at NIH. Scientists go where the money is, and if private industry doesn't want to pay for research, they don't seem to care whether they're working for governments or academia, just as long as they get the grant money.
I think the real problem, and it's the age-old problem that never will have a solution, is that agendas affect outcomes. So if you are sophisticated enough or educated enough or cynical enough to be on the lookout for agendas, you have a fighting chance of not being snowed, at least not all the time.
I couldn't really understand the article you posted, but it seemed to be about a new tool to use to be on the lookout for agendas and bias, but the writer didn't like it because it could also be used to advance agendas and bias, as well as question assumptions. Apparently the people he interviewed liked things better the old way, and it appears to be because it was easier to reach a consensus the old way.
Am I missing the point? Are consensuses important to regulators in and of themselves even when they may be based on faulty data? |
