Protected River Lugg 'bulldozed' in 'wildlife crime'· Page 3

ttxela
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

4 years ago

"royfellows" wrote:
Peter makes some very interesting points, and I think an obvious question arises as why it it is that many people have such scepticism to just about everything?

Well, looking at films, books, TV programmes etc. the 'independent thinker, the sceptic, the maverick who goes against popular opinion, is usually the hero who saves the day. It's viewed as a positive thing to not accept things at face value and to form your own opinion.

This probably is a good thing, in the past it has been too easy for those in authority to take advantage of those who 'knew their place'.

Unfortunately though this message has also been taken widely to heart by the hard of thinking.....

BertyBasset
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

4 years ago

#42

Quote:

Please though, lets not wonder into any contentious areas on aditnow.

Before we get back on track - chumocracy.

as epitomised by everyone's favourite 'waste of space' - Baroness Dido Harding.

And you wonder why people are cynical.

Peter Burgess
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

4 years ago

#43

"royfellows" wrote:

We had the Enron business, the banking crisis, the 'cash for honours' with a serving prime minister interviewed by the police while under caution, it goes on and on.

.... none of which, as far as I know, were scandals related to scientific knowledge.

But, you are quite right, the dubious activities of non-scientific entities such as government and commercial enterprise has soured the environment of scientific enhancement. Of course, scientific enhancements have been eagerly grabbed by those with a political motive - which probably doesn't help when it's done for non-scientific reasons, such as the misuse of nuclear technology etc.

But, back to the subject originally presented, I suppose nowadays whenever we are told there is something we are not allowed to do, rather than try to understand why (and whether it's for a good reason or not), more people now simply look for someone to blame and vilify for denying them the right to do as they please (such as "destroying" a river).

ttxela
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

4 years ago

#44

"Peter Burgess" wrote:

.... none of which, as far as I know, were scandals related to scientific knowledge.

Sadly it's not that uncommon for there to be scandals and dishonesty in science, normally this is related to falsifying or manipulating data to keep grant money coming or to get the right results from your trial.

I have worked with one scientist who ended up in prison for falsifying clinical trial data.

https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2013/05/prison-sentence-altering-data

Bodger
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

4 years ago

#45

Yes you are right scientists are humans too, but given the career ending damage to their reputation when they give in to temptation and get caught incidents like this are actually thankfully rare. After all we live in a country that enforces rigorous controls on this. Lets face it the very fact that this guy got caught is reassuring and shows the regulatory environment of clinical trials is doing its job 😉.

Getting back to the original topic...

I sympathize with the farmer he may well have done this to address what was a major issue for locals. The EA like many public bodies are critically underfunded that's the issue here, it is like a lot of things at the moment they are probably over stretched!

ttxela
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

4 years ago

#46

"Bodger" wrote:
Yes you are right scientists are humans too, but given the career ending damage to their reputation when they give in to temptation and get caught incidents like this are actually thankfully rare. After all we live in a country that enforces rigorous controls on this. Lets face it the very fact that this guy got caught is reassuring and shows the regulatory environment of clinical trials is doing its job 😉.

So that would be an argument for a stronger regulatory framework in areas like environmental protection where things do seem to regularly go wrong....

"Bodger" wrote:

Getting back to the original topic...

I sympathize with the farmer he may well have done this to address what was a major issue for locals. The EA like many public bodies are critically underfunded that's the issue here, it is like a lot of things at the moment they are probably over stretched!

That is certainly what he appears to be claiming, however as many have pointed out he appears to have done the job badly and caused quite a bit of damage in the process. Our village badly needs a bypass but I suspect if the local farmer had a bash at it himself without permission there might be issues...

Mr.C
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

4 years ago

#47

"ttxela" wrote:

"Peter Burgess" wrote:

.... none of which, as far as I know, were scandals related to scientific knowledge.

Sadly it's not that uncommon for there to be scandals and dishonesty in science, normally this is related to falsifying or manipulating data to keep grant money coming or to get the right results from your trial.

I have worked with one scientist who ended up in prison for falsifying clinical trial data.

https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2013/05/prison-sentence-altering-data

Off topic I know, but quite astounded by that Alex. In my working life I must of written well over 100 GLP compliant SOPs & signed thousands of GLP compliant documents. I had no idea that it was enshrined in law, I thought GLP was just what it stands for - good practice!
I know 2 people who were caught falsifying data, not to make something pass that should of failed though. They did it because they couldn't be arsed to do the work to produce the data! Both were sacked on the spot.

We inhabit an island made of coal, surrounded by a sea full of fish. How can we go wrong.......

ttxela
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

4 years ago

#48

"Mr.C" wrote:

"ttxela" wrote:

"Peter Burgess" wrote:

.... none of which, as far as I know, were scandals related to scientific knowledge.

Sadly it's not that uncommon for there to be scandals and dishonesty in science, normally this is related to falsifying or manipulating data to keep grant money coming or to get the right results from your trial.

I have worked with one scientist who ended up in prison for falsifying clinical trial data.

https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2013/05/prison-sentence-altering-data

Off topic I know, but quite astounded by that Alex. In my working life I must of written well over 100 GLP compliant SOPs & signed thousands of GLP compliant documents. I had no idea that it was enshrined in law, I thought GLP was just what it stands for - good practice!
I know 2 people who were caught falsifying data, not to make something pass that should of failed though. They did it could they couldn't be arsed to do the work to produce the data! Both were sacked on the spot.

The fellow involved was prosecuted under Scottish Law but I believe the same applies in England. They are Regulations rather than law but as such have quasi-legal status in that by following them you are demonstrating agreed compliance with the overriding law.

simonrl
51% (Neutral)
Administration

4 years ago

#49

"ttxela" wrote:
Our village badly needs a bypass but I suspect if the local farmer had a bash at it himself without permission there might be issues...

It's been done ;)

https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2014-07-31/local-businessman-builds-temporary-bypass-across-field

my orders are to sit here and watch the world go by

ttxela
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

4 years ago

#50

:lol::lol::lol:

Peter Burgess
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

4 years ago

#51

Falsifying data in order to obtain funding (unless I am interpreting things wrongly) would be a basic case of fraud, even without regulations on scientific data etc.

Mr.C
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

4 years ago

#52

"ttxela" wrote:

"Mr.C" wrote:

"ttxela" wrote:

"Peter Burgess" wrote:

.... none of which, as far as I know, were scandals related to scientific knowledge.

Sadly it's not that uncommon for there to be scandals and dishonesty in science, normally this is related to falsifying or manipulating data to keep grant money coming or to get the right results from your trial.

I have worked with one scientist who ended up in prison for falsifying clinical trial data.

https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2013/05/prison-sentence-altering-data

Off topic I know, but quite astounded by that Alex. In my working life I must of written well over 100 GLP compliant SOPs & signed thousands of GLP compliant documents. I had no idea that it was enshrined in law, I thought GLP was just what it stands for - good practice!
I know 2 people who were caught falsifying data, not to make something pass that should of failed though. They did it could they couldn't be arsed to do the work to produce the data! Both were sacked on the spot.

The fellow involved was prosecuted under Scottish Law but I believe the same applies in England. They are Regulations rather than law but as such have quasi-legal status in that by following them you are demonstrating agreed compliance with the overriding law.

Sounds like one of those i knew of was lucky to avoid prosecution. The data that he'd "made up" was QC data for a human vaccine. Luckily it was discovered before the product left the factory.

We inhabit an island made of coal, surrounded by a sea full of fish. How can we go wrong.......

royfellows
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie Topic Starter

4 years ago

#53

"Peter Burgess" wrote:
Falsifying data in order to obtain funding (unless I am interpreting things wrongly) would be a basic case of fraud, even without regulations on scientific data etc.

Agreed

My avatar is a poor likeness.

neutronix
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

4 years ago

#54

"Peter Burgess" wrote:
Falsifying data in order to obtain funding (unless I am interpreting things wrongly) would be a basic case of fraud, even without regulations on scientific data etc.

Check out Broad and Wade "Betrayers of the Truth" for a detailed analysis of scientific fraud up to the early 90s. Mostly medical fraud (it's where the dollar dollar is) but an interesting final section that nails some of the greats including Hipparchus, Claudius Ptolemy, Galileo, Newton, Dalton, Mendel and Millikan. More recently, the case of Hendrik Schon in solid state physics fraud is dissected in "Plastic Fantastic" by Reich.

Ultimately scientific fraud is carried out by a tiny minority and it is saddening if people believe otherwise.

“There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact." Mark Twain

ttxela
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

4 years ago

#55

"Peter Burgess" wrote:
Falsifying data in order to obtain funding (unless I am interpreting things wrongly) would be a basic case of fraud, even without regulations on scientific data etc.

I think fraud usually implies financial or personal gain. This is perhaps often the case but in the instance I mentioned, as commented on by the judge, the motive was far from clear, certainly no financial gain was involved.

ttxela
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

4 years ago

#56

"neutronix" wrote:

Ultimately scientific fraud is carried out by a tiny minority and it is saddening if people believe otherwise.

Absolutely, it's definitely the exception rather than the rule, most scientists I know are extremely diligent.

Mr.C
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

4 years ago

#57

"ttxela" wrote:

"neutronix" wrote:

Ultimately scientific fraud is carried out by a tiny minority and it is saddening if people believe otherwise.

Absolutely, it's definitely the exception rather than the rule, most scientists I know are extremely diligent.

Me too, I've worked mostly in the analytical & research sides of the pharmaceutical industry from 1977 to 2015 & the 2 I mentioned are the only examples I can think of. As Alex says the rest are pretty well beyond reproach.

We inhabit an island made of coal, surrounded by a sea full of fish. How can we go wrong.......

royfellows
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie Topic Starter

4 years ago

#58

Logically, you will get good and bad in all, whether scientists or whatever. Indeed on websites as well, so wrong to generalise, like 28DL ?

My avatar is a poor likeness.

Coggy
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

4 years ago

#59

Is this even a mining interest ?

if eight out of ten cats all prefer Whiskas
Do the other two prefer Lesley Judd ?

Peter Burgess
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

4 years ago

#60

Potentially, yes, if mining sites are "tidied up" even though they may have some statutory protection.