Wing Nut Dog Food
I hope this innocuous crap does not get promulgated as evidence by the anti-science wing of the USA (i.e. the right) as elitism or outright fraud among academics. Why don't I think the following as anything extraordinary?
- "Failing to present data that contradict one's own previous research" (6% of respondents)
- "Changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source" (15.5%)
- "Dropping ... data ... based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate" (15.3%)
If the right-wing pundits took up the reigns of honesty, they would try eating their own dog food and respond to the survey thusly:
- "Failing to present data that contradict one's own previous knowledge, education, etc" (100% of respondents)
- "Changing the design, methodology or results of a bloviation in response to pressure from a funding source" (100%)
- "Dropping ... data ... based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate" (0%)
But then again, the actual percentage quoted likely results from respondents feeling the heat from the BushCo crime family's war on brains, and deciding to tell it like it is.
c.f. - US Fish and Wildlife Service ordered to not use modern science -
Update: Via AAR, a NOAA fisheries science survey says:
More than one third of respondents positioned to make such recommendations (37 percent) have “been directed, for non-scientific reasons, to refrain from making findings that are protective” of marine life and nearly one in four (24 percent) of those conducting such work reported being “directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from a NOAA Fisheries scientific document;”
More than half of all respondents (53 percent) knew of cases where “commercial interests have inappropriately induced the reversal or withdrawal of scientific conclusions or decisions through political intervention;” and
More than half of the scientists (58 percent) knew of cases “where high-level U.S. Department of Commerce administrators and appointees have inappropriately altered NOAA Fisheries determinations.” A substantial minority (42 percent) also cited incidents where members of Congress “inappropriately influenced NOAA Fisheries determinations.”