Editor’s Note: This article is the third in a three-part series.

by Jay Lehr, Ph.D. Science Director, The Heartland Institute, and Mike Gemmell

The Operation of Grant-Funded Science in the Present Day

According to Donald W. Miller (The Government Grant System: Inhibitor of Truth and Innovation?, Journal of Information Ethics, Spring 2007), the following paradigms are being treated as dogma even though there have been valid questions raised about each of the orthodoxies:

1. Cholesterol and saturated fats cause coronary artery disease.

2. Mutations in genes cause cancer.

3. Human activity is causing global warming through increased CO2 emissions.

4. A virus called HIV (human immunodeficiency) causes AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome.)

5. The damaging effects of toxins are dose-dependent in a linear fashion down to zero. Even a tiny amount of a toxin, such as radiation or cigarette smoke, will harm some people.

6. The membrane-pump theory of cell physiology is based on the concept that cells are aqueous solutions enclosed by a cell membrane.

Miller lists numerous scientists of significant standing that have voiced objections to each of these paradigms and have been denied grants and/or silenced (e.g., Peter Duesberg, Willie Soon, U. Ravenskov, N. Hodgkinson, S. Lang, D.J. Calabrese, G.Ling, G.H. Pollack….)

Before moving on to the antidote for what is poisoning publicly funded science we’ll let the words of a scientific researcher in health and medicine speak to this topic. In a Dec 31, 2005 interview, Robin Arcarian stated:

“I cannot come out and say that we can teach responsible drinking – I would be at a major risk from an institutional perspective for saying that … you would never get funding for that not in our current political climate.” (Dec 31, 2005, LA Times, “Is Home Schooling Best for Drinking?”

To members of the scientific community as well as the public, please heed the following words:

“Be skeptical of alarmist science, consensus science, and those making personal attacks on scientists who dispute the so-called consensus, or reigning paradigm on scientific issues.”

(We hope that readers of this paper will want to investigate the wider implications of how the four-step degenerative process associated with the misuse of the public interest principle has caused widespread damage to the freedom and prosperity of Americans, and others around the world. To investigate the issue further, there is probably no better place to start than F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom. Hayek’s understanding of ideas that threaten the traditions of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness makes the book a classic. The four-step degenerative process presented in this paper is a distillation of Hayek’s presentation in The Road to Serfdom. The authors and defenders / lovers of liberty everywhere are in his debt for this incisive work, as well as other great works he authored.)

Primary Reform Concepts

Our proposed approach for reform consists of two concepts presented below.

Concept #1: Release of Scientific Data and Data Protocols

The release of data and data protocols is intended to prevent data hoarding and other dubious practices that have been used to keep scientists from challenging reigning paradigms, among other abuses. Prompt release of data and protocols will make it much easier to challenge dubious research results. This will be achieved by creating an environment of openness where the work of a discredited researcher will also reflect badly on the institution responsible for publishing the research. Knowing that anyone who is skeptical about a given piece of research has the law on their side, should go a long way toward making it easier to voice legitimate objections to published research. Skeptics can simply state their request for a timely review of the research data with a statement along the following lines:

“The law requires the immediate release of data. Furthermore, if the researchers have nothing to hide, they should have no objection to releasing their data immediately....”

Note: for those doing computer modeling (e.g., climate change simulations ostensibly due to manmade CO2 contributions), in lieu of collecting and analyzing data, computer program source codes would serve as the equivalent to data and data protocols and would need to be released within one week of publishing model simulation results.

Concept #2: Full Disclosure in the Grant Funding Process

With full disclosure --combined with adherence to objectivity-- the paradigm-challenging grant seeker no longer needs to worry about his grant proposal being taken seriously. If he wishes to challenge bad data or research in the literature he can cite data, research, and/or rationale as needed to make his case. With full disclosure applying to all parties including those administering grants, outside parties of any type, including the media, blogs, etc. can be consulted if the grant seeker believes his grant is not being viewed objectively by grant administrators. As a result, grant applications will likely become much less formalized and unnecessarily restrictive when potential rebuttals, accountability of all parties, and other competitive pressures that result from full disclosure are brought to bear.

Adherence to scientific objectivity, combined with full disclosure, will make it possible for those challenging the scientific consensus or reigning paradigm, to get a fair hearing on controversial ideas. Neither will it harm those that are following the consensus. It simply makes it necessary for all interested parties to back up their views with facts and logic. Free-flow of information is in the interest of all honest parties in the public sphere. Also, the public has a right to know how its money is being spent, and being privy to the debates concerning the grant application process will greatly aid in achieving that aim.

Summary

Implementing the two reform ideas above should cause a ripple effect through all aspects of grantfunded science and initiate selfcorrecting mechanisms that will:

• produce more meaningful advances in science;

• curtail abuses of: science by consensus, political correctness, and alarmist science; and

• provide taxpayers with a much better return on the dollars they have invested in scientific research.