Randi and the University of Arizona

[sackett]

Randi's exchange with the University of Arizona's Prexy Peter Likens, and the unnamed reader's remarks he quotes, trouble me.

The reader seems to think that the U of AZ should put a stop to the stuff Schwartz and his team are up to. He says, ". . .the people who run the University and who allow this nonsense. . . ."

Whoops, hold it right there, reader. The University doesn't allow anything. As long as Schwartz and his colleagues meet their contractual obligations, i.e., teach their classes and carry out their committee assignments, they are legally untouchable - and so they should be, unless contracts are to be treated as worthless. I've seen too many laymen's attacks on academia to be sympathetic to this sort of misapprehension.

Randi doesn't go so far as to say that the University should somehow put a halt to Schwartz's activities. It's unclear to me exactly what he wants Likens to do. Should he call Master Schwartz into his office for a stern lecture? I assume that Schwartz is tenured; if so, he can cheerfully give the Prex a one-finger salute and still be legally untouchable.

Likens's reply is short and adequate: he's sticking by his faculty. If somebody pressed him to interfere with Schwartz and Laurie Campbell, he could answer in perfect truth that his hands are tied - and again, so they ****** should be, and must be if academic freedom is to continue.

Schwartz and his gang are particularly laughable examples of what you have to put up with occasionally in academia: goofball perfessers who couldn't find their butts with both hands and outside help. But there aren't many of them, and they're a small burden to bear.

[Jeff Corey]

I agree. Academic freedom implies the freedom to make an fool out of yourself.
Look at Harvard Med School's reaction to John Mack and his patients abducted by aliems from another dimension.
Nothing that I have read.
Correct me if I am wrong.

[CFLarsen]

sackett,

How wrong should a professor be allowed to be, before you would step in?

How many professors can there be, before you would step in?

[davidsmith73]

To object to Schwartz's experiments on methodological grounds is perfectly reasonable, as they are guff. However, Randi also objects on theoretical grounds which is not in the spirit (no pun intended) of academic freedom.

[sackett]

CFL asks: "How wrong should a professor be allowed to be, before you would step in? How many professors can there be, before you would step in?"

(Can't get the Quote function to function.)

There's nothing to "be allowed." If I were president of the university, I could not "step in." If I tried, the American Association of University Professors would have to be scraped off the ceiling -- and when they came down, they'd due my a$$ and the university's a$$, and win.

If I were in Likens's shoes, being the sort of guy I am, I'd issue a short public statement quoting Dr. Jeffrey Corey and then let it go at that. BTW, I doubt that Schwartz is really bringing all that much unfavorable attention to the U of AZ; a freak show always draws a crowd, but then it disperses again.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

How wrong should a professor be allowed to be, before you would step in?

How many professors can there be, before you would step in?

Assuming that Dr. Schwartz is tenured (but even if he's not tenured, the following would apply as ethical standards, if not as legally binding requirements), there are generally three reasons for which one can "step in" and dismiss a faculty member. (Individual contracts differ, but if they differ too much, the AAUP or its foreign equivalent generally has something to say about it).

First, the University itself can be in financial exigency, or there may be a bona fide reason for terminating an entire program. Doesn't seem to apply.

Second, if the professor displays "moral turpitude," which typically involves either getting caught sexually harassing students or with a hand in the university till. Again, there's no implication of this in any of the accounts I've read.

Third and finally, the professor displays "incompetence." Now, you could argue that the professor is being incompetent in the way he conducts his research --- but that's only part of the overall package of being a professor. As long as he's teaching his required course load to an acceptable standard and performing the required service component adequately, then he's probably "competent" under the legal definition. Perhaps more relevantly, universities are usually extremely loathe to invoke this clause, because it almost always guarantees a length court fight, and even if they win, it will inevitably result in bad publicity for the university. After all, professors don't become incompetent overnight, and the real question becoemes "why did you tenure someone who wasn't competent in the first place?"

From a legal standpoint, Dr. Schwartz is quite possibly untouchable (as sackett pointed out). On the other hand, the "stern lecture" is both possible and appropriate -- and if Dr. Schwartz is really recalcitrant, there's no requirement that the university provide him with lab and office space for his research. Again, though, this is a card that universities are extremely loath to play because of the bad mojo that always follows.

[CFLarsen]

So, a professor cannot (in the US) be censured because he does bad science?

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by new drkitten
...if Dr. Schwartz is really recalcitrant, there's no requirement that the university provide him with lab and office space for his research. Again, though, this is a card that universities are extremely loath to play because of the bad mojo that always follows.
It appears he's getting outside funding. The U typically gets a hunk of that as "overhead". In some cases, over half of the grant.
And besides, the publicity isn't quite as bad as having your football coach kill some players during training.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, a professor cannot (in the US) be censured because he does bad science?

And in most other civilized countries. It's called "academic freedom," and it's quite important. The general feeling is that the price of having a few fools around is well worth the benefit of not having Gallileo-like (or in the US, McCarthy-like) witch-hunts. It keeps knotheads like the sort running the Georgia school boards from putting stickers on the covers of college textbooks, and prevents the university from getting rid of professors who defiantly insist that Lysenko was wrong, despite what the commissars say.

After all, if Schwarz is wrong, no one will remember him in a hundred years. If he's right (and we're wrong), everyone will remember him, and no one will remember us. Remind me again, what was the name of the Pope who tried Gallileo?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by new drkitten
And in most other civilized countries. It's called "academic freedom," and it's quite important. The general feeling is that the price of having a few fools around is well worth the benefit of not having Gallileo-like (or in the US, McCarthy-like) witch-hunts. It keeps knotheads like the sort running the Georgia school boards from putting stickers on the covers of college textbooks, and prevents the university from getting rid of professors who defiantly insist that Lysenko was wrong, despite what the commissars say.

I am not talking about opinions on what is bad science. I am talking about bad science itself, not politics or religious beliefs.

Originally posted by new drkitten
After all, if Schwarz is wrong, no one will remember him in a hundred years. If he's right (and we're wrong), everyone will remember him, and no one will remember us. Remind me again, what was the name of the Pope who tried Gallileo?

Urban VIII.

[Silicon]

Does he have a requirement to publish?

If so, he needs to share his data.

[sackett]

Originally posted by Silicon
Does he have a requirement to publish?

If so, he needs to share his data.
Nope, he's under no obligation to publish. If he's getting grant or contract money, i.e., outside funding, the grantor can require a final report, but I doubt that's the case here.

BTW, Jeff (and thanx for the pithy summary of the lighter side of academic freedom), public universtities with audited indirect cost rates don't make a dime out of overhead, more correctly called indirect costs (IDC). The long-ago legislation setting up the IDC mechanism stipulates that not quite all such costs are to be recovered. Many people assume that grants/contracts spin money for a university. I wish it were so; I would long since have retired aboard my yacht. If Schwartz and crew really are getting some sucker's $$$ to do their stuff, the U of AZ gets nothing out of it but embarassment.

[valis]

is well worth the benefit of not having Gallileo-like (or in the US, McCarthy-like) witch-hunts.

Just to wander a tad of the subject; the use of 'Witch hunt' to refer to the McCarthy hearings is a common mistake. Witch hunt implies looking for something that does not exist, and snaring the innocent in the progress. as was done in Salem.

McCarthy was not hunting witches he was hunting communists. These people were very real and there were some that had infiltrated the U.S. Government, how many may be in dispute but that some number of them existed has been pretty well proven.

McCarthy may have been an oppourtunist, a zealot, a nut, a drunk, or even a pedophile. as some have claimed. But he was not hunting witches.

[Silicon]

And how many of those communists had "infiltrated" Hollywood?


Was there a pressing national security interest in attacking the dangerous foe of freedom Charlie Chaplin? You know, that "Modern Times" really ennobles the working man. I'm sure it's a Communistic Tract.

Or any of dozens of other people in Hollywood who committed no crime other than belonging to a legal political party ten years prior to the cold war

There are witches in the world. There are Communists too.


Wikipedia has this listing for witch-hunt. I think it's more accurate to what a witch-hunt is.

I think you're confusing it with the term snipe-hunt or wild-goose-chase, where the thing being looked for is non-existant.


A witch-hunt is a search for suspected witches; it is a type of moral panic.

...
The term is usually used more metaphorically to refer to a search for a perceived enemy, with the implication of the hysteria, prejudice and injustice that was often seen in the great early modern witchhunts.




Witch hunt it was. Absolutely.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Silicon
Does he have a requirement to publish?

If so, he needs to share his data.
As pointed out earlier, no. Arizonal U's IRB probably demanded that he archive the data for at least a year in a secured place. The data I presented at TAM1 are still in a secured space. But there is no requirement that I share them with anybody - they are considered confidential.

[crimresearch]

It seems as though the concept of academic freedom for professors (along with honoring employment contracts) is an immaterial inconvenience to those who have never been in that position.

On the other hand, when people like C. Ray Jefferey, or Paul Dirac had something controversial but correct and useful to say, there are some of us who are sort of glad that politically appointed University presidents couldn't just walk in and fire a faculty member for espousing points of view that were unpopular.

And in the real world in which most of us have to function, if you give one unpopular point of view academic freedom, it sort of opens the door for others, even woos, as long as they stay within certain constraints.

[jmercer]

I was just wondering... what if their unsupported announcements contribute to the harm of people around them? As in boosting an industry like psychics that take people's money, harm them emotionally, etc.

Don't academics have the same social responsiblities that the rest of us do? Maybe it's not quite the same thing as shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater... but I wonder how an academic would be treated if he or she asserted (without valid proof) that the racial engineering attempted by the Nazi's (via genocide) was actually sound in principle, and could have resulted in a superior race?

(Just an example to make a point. I have no love for Nazism and what Hitler and his cronies did, and I don't believe in the theory behind the racial "purges" in any way.)

[valis]

Originally posted by Silicon
And how many of those communists had "infiltrated" Hollywood?


Are you kidding? There were many in Hollywood that were members of the communist party, that's hardly a big seceret.

It may seem like an over reaction now but if you recall the communists stated goal was the elimination of capatalism, in other words the U.S. While we were having hearings and causing how many. a few thousand, maybe. to loose jobs the Soviets were killing millions to keep their ideolagy pure. I can see why we might have been a little overzealous in trying to keep that system from migrating here.

[davefoc]

I think I would do this if I was the head of University of Arizona.

I would require Scwartz to provide a written explanation as to why he is not releasing data but is releasing conclusions.

If he failed to cooperate I would move to deny Swartz University resources for his research. I would also issue a statement distancing the university from Scwartz's conclusions.

If Swartz complied, I would submit the explanation to a group of the University's senior professors. If they agreed that there were valid reasons for keeping the data secret that would be the end of it for me. If the panel did not except Schartz's explanation I would request that Scwartz make the data public and if he failed to comply once again I would move to deny Scwarz university resources for his research and issue a statement distancing the university from Schartz.

If the administrator of a public university does not have at least this much power to deal with a professor using public funds and the reputation of a public university to do fundamentally flawed research then there is something very wrong with the University of Arizona organization.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by davefoc
I would require Scwartz to provide a written explanation as to why he is not releasing data but is releasing conclusions.

This might be a solution. Why don't we ask UA why Schwartz doesn't release his data? We don't need to say anything about the nature of his research, all we need to do is hammer on the fact that he conducts research in secrecy.

It's the principle, dummy.

[Jeff Corey]

Claus and Davefoc,
I still don't think the president of any U can or should be able to bring that sort of pressure for Schwartz to release his data.
We don't know the terms of Schwartz's agreement with the U's IRB. It may be that the data must remain confidential.
And Davefoc, the president may not be able to remove Schwartz's support. Doesn't he have big buck$ woo woo backing?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Claus and Davefoc,
I still don't think the president of any U can or should be able to bring that sort of pressure for Schwartz to release his data.
We don't know the terms of Schwartz's agreement with the U's IRB. It may be that the data must remain confidential.


It may very well be. But, given Schwartz' descriptions of his participants and the readings in his book, how can he possibly claim confidentiality now? He basically spills everything in his book, so why can't we just see the raw data?

Not convincing.

[crimresearch]

Why (and how) just Schwartz?
Other researchers have been unable to satisfy their critics ( in some cases, up to the point at which they won Nobel Prizes for their 'unprovable' research)
...so explain how you make an exception for Schwartz without opening the door to stopping valuable but controversial research...and making access to science a popularity contest.

Going to use psychic powers to tell the real woos from the controversial and widely rejected iconoclasts?

Or does having a noble end, justify the means?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Why (and how) just Schwartz?
Other researchers have been unable to satisfy their critics ( in some cases, up to the point at which they won Nobel Prizes for their 'unprovable' research)
...so explain how you make an exception for Schwartz without opening the door to stopping valuable but controversial research...and making access to science a popularity contest.

Going to use psychic powers to tell the real woos from the controversial and widely rejected iconoclasts?

Or does having a noble end, justify the means?

Who said anything about this only being about Schwartz?

[davefoc]

Jeff Corey said:I still don't think the president of any U can or should be able to bring that sort of pressure for Schwartz to release his data.

I can't disagree about "can" since I just don't know about these things but as far as "should" goes I disagree completely. I think we all agree at some point a researcher can become so irrational and so unproductive that a university has a duty not to provide him public resources. The only question is when this would happen. My view is that it's happening right now with regard to Swartz and you propose that the university shouldn't even be able to force him to provide a reason for hiding his research data.

What protection does the taxpayer have in your mind when it comes to funding unproductive or wacko research?

Note that when I said take away resources, I didn't say fire him, I meant take away his access to labs, equipment and lab personel. If he has some great benefactor that wants to pay the university for those resources, great. However the research could not be represented as being associated with the university.

CFL said:Who said anything about this only being about Schwartz?

exactly

[crimresearch]

CFL said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who said anything about this only being about Schwartz?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

exactly
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Schwartz isn't the only researcher at a university not sharing his data...nor is he the only one drawing criticism.

Now you know he is a woo, I know he is a woo, Randi knows he is a woo, and the school's president probably knows he is a woo...but he is a woo staying within the same parameters as controversial 'legitimate' researchers.
And no one has answered my question as to how you tell the Schwartzes from the crackpots who are going to win the Nobel Prize in a few years with their controversial and currently unprovable work.

Get rid of protections like tenure to get at Schwartz and you lose Gary Kleck, Paul Dirac, Sutherland, (remember? His work offended J. Edgar Hoover), and others...


So if you are saying that this *isn't* just about Schwartz, then how you are not saying that university presidents should be given the power to get rid of anyone who draws the same criticisms?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by davefoc

I can't disagree about "can" since I just don't know about these things but as far as "should" goes I disagree completely. I think we all agree at some point a researcher can become so irrational and so unproductive that a university has a duty not to provide him public resources. The only question is when this would happen.


There is such a point at which a tenured academic can be removed from his post. It's called "incompetence," and it's a standard part of the academic contract. (Or alternatively, if he's committing outright fraud, then it might be termed "moral turpitude," with similar effects.)


My view is that it's happening right now with regard to Swartz and you propose that the university shouldn't even be able to force him to provide a reason for hiding his research data.


For good or for ill, your view is neither the traditional one, northe controlling one. Academia has a tendence to be extremely jealous of the privileges of "academic freedom," and with good reason, given the extremely long history of politically-motivated interference with academia.

The taxpayer has an extremely simple protection against publically-funded bad research. Stop funding it. My understanding is that Schwartz is pursuing research based on private funds, and is performing his other duties (teaching and service) acceptably and adequately.

Basically, as a taxpayer, you have no gripe. The tenure contract you signed with him (or the state signed with him on your behalf) guarantees him freedom to research as he sees fit. You're getting the teaching and service you pay for. If you don't like what he's doing, you shouldn't have tenured him in the first place.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by crimresearch
And no one has answered my question as to how you tell the Schwartzes from the crackpots who are going to win the Nobel Prize in a few years with their controversial and currently unprovable work.

Here's a clue: Don't presuppose the existence of X in an experiment designed to prove the existence of X.

Where X = ghosts.

[davefoc]

If a person doesn't publish data what public value is the public receiving in return for the provision of resources to that person?

If a person doesn't publish data how does the university know whether public resources are being used to fund private research?

Although, the idea of academic freedom seems like a good thing I really doubt that universities have no rights with regard to the distribution of resources for research to a tenured professor.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by davefoc

[QUOTE]
Although, the idea of academic freedom seems like a good thing I really doubt that universities have no rights with regard to the distribution of resources for research to a tenured professor.

No, they have rights. Specifically, they have the right to either follow the terms of the tenured contract that they've already given Dr. Schwartz. They also have the right to breach the self-same contract and to defend an extremely expensive breach of contract lawsuit which they will lose. At this point, it's not merely an abstract question of ethics, but a simple open-and-shut matter of contract law. (How would you react if you wrote a book, and then the publisher decided to arbitrarily not pay you the royalties the book had earned?)

If you ever become president of a university, you can (of course) try to re-write the new contracts as they are issued. You can even declare that your university will no longer issue tenured contracts. The AAUP will scream blue murder and warn every academic in the world against working for you. Faculty loyalty and retention will plummet, because disloyalty runs both ways. You'll never affordably recruit another professor worth having. On the other hand, this is all your call. A few schools -- very few of them academic powerhouses -- have done so; examples include Bennington, Hampshire, and probably most famous, Florida Gulf Coast University.

But the cost is substantial. Academic scientists generally accept lower salaries than they can earn in the private sector because they are offered tenured (or tenure-track, with the expectation of tenured) contracts. One researcher (Clotfelder) put it as follows : "Tenure was [for the focus group participants] the tangible manifestation of the fact that they were not mere employees. Because of this special position, they were willing to work for less, for the love of the institution, although not always without resentment. (One said, "We are already getting ripped off.") One faculty member from a small college wondered allowed [sic] about the tenured faculty there: "What is the difference between you and any other hired hand?" Tenure, according to this professor, allows faculty to resist the supposed consumer orientation of administrators. This professor concluded, "I don't like being treated like I'm an employee." To these faculty, attempts to induce faculty to relinguish tenure would be further proof that business values were replacing academic ones." Elsewhere he has written : "Professors are quite aware of the value of the job security that tenure entails. Although this security is not absolute, it is sufficient to insulate tenured faculty from some of the threats or forces that impinge on employees in most industries. Protection against the threat of being fired for expressing unpopular views, a common justification for tenure, is a benefit keenly appreciated by the faculty in focus groups."

Clotfelder found that, even in a circumstance where academic freedom were independently guaranteed by contract (so you still wouldn't have a lever to use on rogue wingnuts like Schwartz), faculty would still not want to relinquish tenure, even for a substantial financial incentive. He was discussing, for example, a 15% yearly salary increase. Oregon State has an equivalent program, again guaranteeing academic freedom, offering a 6% bonus as part of an early retirement program. Presumably, this incentive would need to be substantially higher if you're not willing to guarantee academic freedom in your contracts, and are not offering it as an early retirement scheme. Would you be willing to commit to an extra $20-25 thousand dollars per year per faculty member?

[crimresearch]

It might also be enlightening for folks to do a little digging on their own, and see how many of these university presidents that they are so eager to have censor controversial research, are themselves well regarded scientists, and how many of them are politically (or otherwise) connected appointees.

[sackett]

Originally posted by davefoc
If a person doesn't publish data what public value is the public receiving in return for the provision of resources to that person?

If a person doesn't publish data how does the university know whether public resources are being used to fund private research?

Although, the idea of academic freedom seems like a good thing I really doubt that universities have no rights with regard to the distribution of resources for research to a tenured professor.
Taking these in order:

An investigator is the only judge of whether or not his results are worth publishing. However, since so much university research provides topics for dissertations, publication of at least some data is almost inevitable.

All universities that receive outside funding are subject to audit by the Feds.

I'm glad that "the idea of academic freedom seems like a good thing," because it's fiercely defended by academics. A university president who tried to deny resources to a faculty member would be met with defiance by the department chair and probably also by the dean of the relevant college. In addition, he'd likely be accused of discrimination by the faculty member, to the delight of all the lawyers within sniffing distance.

I repeat: Schwartz is a small price to pay for freedom of inquiry

[drkitten]

Originally posted by new drkitten

If you ever become president of a university, you can (of course) try to re-write the new contracts as they are issued. You can even declare that your university will no longer issue tenured contracts. The AAUP will scream blue murder and warn every academic in the world against working for you. Faculty loyalty and retention will plummet, because disloyalty runs both ways. You'll never affordably recruit another professor worth having. On the other hand, this is all your call. A few schools -- very few of them academic powerhouses -- have done so; examples include Bennington, Hampshire, and probably most famous, Florida Gulf Coast University.


I know, following up to my own post here, but I found an interesting first-hand account of this problem. From Irvin D.S. Winsboro, a history professor at the aforementioned FGCU (which by policy does not offer tenured or tenure-track contracts):
FGCU has a vibrant and attractive campus and serves a booming community in southwest Florida that includes two of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the United States. Given such enticements (not to mention good weather and sunny beaches), it was reasonable to expect a larger than normal pool of applicants for any position at FGCU. The expectations could only be reinforced by another reasonable assumption—that the "job crisis" in history and the fact that we were seeking a person in U.S. history, a field that outstripped all other areas of PhD production according to recurrent data in Perspectives, would generate more applications. Moreover, our advertisement stipulated pay for junior faculty near the recently documented $39,940 average entry pay of state schools like FGCU.

"Over the past years, faculty positions in North America have averaged between 83 and 109 applicants for each opening.3 FGCU received but 40 applications for the advertised line in U.S. history. How could this be? Did the allure of our position and local amenities not compare favorably to other hiring institutions? We had advertised widely (though not in Perspectives), had offered a competitive salary and working conditions package, and we were trying to recruit in the most over-supplied field of concentration. In other words, failure to offer tenure cut the recruitment pool by about 60 percent.

Continuing: The above scenario suggests several multitiered lessons for candidates and institutions involved in today’s history job market. First, it is reasonable to assume—on the basis of the unusually low number of applicants for the position at FGCU—that most freshly minted PhD s are targeting tenure-track positions at research schools for employment. My theory is that many aspiring historians in the job market avoided FGCU, an otherwise desirable place to live and work in, because the advertised position listed an MYA [multi-year appointment] rather than a tenure-track line. A number of candidates who applied for the position seemed reluctant to accept an MYA line during our telephone interviews, and an equal number communicated to me in private discussions and in e-mail exchanges that they would only consider an appointment for a "temporary" job at FGCU as a last resort. Of course, I responded that FGCU was not offering a temporary position but rather a continuing MYA position and reasonable job security. Even so, my distinct feeling is that candidates were not inclined to process (nor even to hear) the message I conveyed.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by new drkitten
I know, following up to my own post here, but I found an interesting first-hand account of this problem. From Irvin D.S. Winsboro, a history professor at the aforementioned FGCU (which by policy does not offer tenured or tenure-track contracts):
In other words, failure to offer tenure cut the recruitment pool by about 60 percent.

Continuing:

We both know that a single case does not generate a generalization, because FUGU might have a reputation as a hotbed of Civil War revisionists, or something else that would repel recent US history Ph.D.s.
I think that the reasons for keeping tenure are not about making the job attractive to new Ph.D.s. They are more about the role of free speech in science.
As I said earlier, academic freedom means you are free to make a fool of yourself.

[davefoc]

Well, just to make my opinion clear on this:

Allowing somebody public resources without any way to monitor the utilization of those resources is an egregious waste of public resources and has nothing to do with academic freedom.

Publishing data is a minimal requirement of all research/development work. Without it not only is the research useless, but there is also no way to monitor the activity to insure that public resources are not being used for private gain.

Frankly, the opinions to the contrary that have been posted here sound like self serving academic elitism to me. Those of us that work in the private sector are required to produce actual product for the benefits we receive but academics can sit around and smell their navals while they use public resources without a problem since the money is just collected anomously from the taxpayers.

Well speaking as both a taxpayer and the father of a child in college if this **** is really the norm this sounds like a great place to start some cost cutting to me.

.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by davefoc
Well, just to make my opinion clear on this:

Allowing somebody public resources without any way to monitor the utilization of those resources is an egregious waste of public resources and has nothing to do with academic freedom.

Publishing data is a minimal requirement of all research/development work. Without it not only is the research useless, but there is also no way to monitor the activity to insure that public resources are not being used for private gain.

Frankly, the opinions to the contrary that have been posted here sound like self serving academic elitism to me. Those of us that work in the private sector are required to produce actual product for the benefits we receive but academics can sit around and smell their navals while they use public resources without a problem since the money is just collected anomously from the taxpayers.

Well speaking as both a taxpayer and the father of a child in college if this **** is really the norm this sounds like a great place to start some cost cutting to me.

.
Sounds good to me, too. There are too many kids in college as it is.
Which part of the "supported by private funding" did you miss?
And I'm glad that you who work in the private sector are required to produce an actual product.
Like Enron.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by davefoc

Well speaking as both a taxpayer and the father of a child in college if this **** is really the norm this sounds like a great place to start some cost cutting to me.


So found your own college.

Then explain to me how you managed to get any private funding for any purposes whatsover, with this sort of micromanagement-via-ignorance.

[davefoc]

First, I have said public resources several times, I have not said anyplace that if he has private resources he should be prevented from using those.

I don't know how to say this any clearer. I'm not suggesting the guy should be fired as a teacher because he isn't releasing his data and I haven't suggested that his privately funded research should be controlled by the university. I have said that when the university supplies resources he should be required to supply the data of that research to the university. If he doesn't want to supply the data then he should use his private funding to reimburse the university for any public resources that were supplied as a part of it.


Jeff Corey mentioned Enron. This is a great example of what I am talking about. When Enron failed to supply a product of sufficient value they went broke. The free market worked. What I am objecting to is researchers in publically funded universities that refuse to supply any product at all.

new drkitten suggested that I wanted to micro-manage research projects in some hypothetical college that I would found. Requiring a researcher at a publically funded university to produce data periodically is not micromanaging by even the slightest possible definition of that word. It is a university exercising due dilligence with regard to its duty to distribute public resources in an accountable way. If a researcher doesn't like that he can fund his own research.

[crimresearch]

It may seem logical to require professors at public universities
(who, no matter how much they hate to admit it, are government employees, bureaucrats, and officials) to share their source data and research, but in the real world that just isn't going to happen.

There is a lot of money, and reputations, riding on a very competitive process, and no one in their right mind is going to give up the data behind their work, in order to see a supervisor, or colleague take credit for (and profit from) it.

That one little crackpot theory can make the difference between being an assistant professor at 50K a year forever, and being an award winning scientist with access to grants and resources that most faculty can only hope for.

Just like giving up tenure, it simply isn't going to happen without overcoming an entrenched system...

[drkitten]

Originally posted by davefoc

new drkitten suggested that I wanted to micro-manage research projects in some hypothetical college that I would found. Requiring a researcher at a publically funded university to produce data periodically is not micromanaging by even the slightest possible definition of that word. It is a university exercising due dilligence with regard to its duty to distribute public resources in an accountable way. If a researcher doesn't like that he can fund his own research.

... which Dr. Schwartz has (funded his own research).

Furthermore, requiring a researcher at a publically funded university to produce data produced from private research is entirely unreasonable, and in fact would eliminate almost all of the academic/industrial partnerships that exist. Or do you think that Bayer would be happy publishing all the details on their new drugs so that Novartis could get a copycat to market sooner?

There are no public resources involved in privately funded research. The university is not supplying resources for his research. That's what "privately funded research" means.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by crimresearch
It may seem logical to require professors at public universities
(who, no matter how much they hate to admit it, are government employees, bureaucrats, and officials) to share their source data and research, but in the real world that just isn't going to happen.


It's not even logical. I have a number of colleagues who are not only not required to publish (some of) their research, but are actively prohibited from doing so. Some of the documents they have signed in this regard use the phrase "national security" prominently (for some reason, The Man doesn't want his new and improved bomb designs published), others use "business confidentiality" (for some reason, Intel doesn't want its new transistor design published), and some of them use "personal privacy" (for some reason, the research subjects don't want their names associated with the intimate sexual details they described on the questionaires).

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by new drkitten
...the research subjects don't want their names associated with the intimate sexual details they described on the questionaires).
'Specially the ones who checked off the whip and the prune Danish.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
'Specially the ones who checked off the whip and the prune Danish.

Actually, those three are cool with it. They've even got a post office box you can contact if you're interested.

[Kopji]

It's sad that I know so many talented teachers working for a pittance, while Schwartz writes his goofy books and glories in the public light at my expense.

Sure he has the right to teach, and I have the right to ridicule the system that placed him there and complain that my taxes help keep him there.

I WORK for a living, and work hard. I have no 'tenure'. I screw up and I'm out.

Fellow educators who welcome people like Schwartz in their midst invite disrespect and ridicule upon themselves and their field.

I have no great claim to fame. I am a very small cog in one of the top five 'best companies' in the US. Top company in some countries.

I hire people, and if schools bring disrespect upon themselves by promoting nonsense, their graduates suffer when looking for a job. It is as simple as that.

[crimresearch]

Then maybe you can answer the question I've asked repeatedly in this thread, to a deafening silence...

How exactly are you going to dismantle tenure to get rid of Schwartz, and leave safeguards for Stanley Prusiner and others?

http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/prusiner/214.shl

[Kopji]

The argument for Prof Prusiner is a compelling one except that the 'opposition' he faced was from other tenured teachers. The 'tenure answer' is to make everyone secure, especially the entrenched opposition to new ideas. What would happen if the opposition suddenly found themselves competing in an environment that required excellence to survive?

Several people I work with also teach at the local University and Community College as professors. The articles I read on tenure did not even address this common reality. There might be a lot to be discussed on the topic.

[davefoc]

new drkitten wrote:It's not even logical. I have a number of colleagues who are not only not required to publish (some of) their research, but are actively prohibited from doing so. Some of the documents they have signed in this regard use the phrase "national security" prominently (for some reason, The Man doesn't want his new and improved bomb designs published), others use "business confidentiality"

Unfortunately this is yet another off topic point. Nobody is arguing that those who pay for the research shouldn't be allowed to control the distribution and publication of the data.

The issue is whether a university that is providing public resources for research should be able to force the researcher who is receiving the public resources to show them the data from this research and publish it if they do not find compelling reasons why the data shouldn't be published.

So far there have been the following straw man arguments associated with this issue.
1. He's a good instructor so you can't fire him.
(nobody said that he should be fired)
2. He's privately funded so you can't force him to reveal data that is part of privately funded research.
(nobody said that he should be required to disclose or publish privately funded research)
3. Research funded by the military often can't be publically disclosed
(nobody said that research for the military should be subject to forced publication when it is funded by the military)
4. There may be other legitimate reasons why the researcher may not want to publish his data.
(nobody said that all researchers should be forced to publish all their data, only that in the absence of periodic publication of data that the university should be able to request an explanation for non publication of the data and to be able to withold public resources if it finds those reasons unacceptable)

[crimresearch]

Then what exactly is your point re Schwartz, who as you already know, isn't doing any of the things that you have said should trigger the demand for data?

He privately funded, he's apparently meeting his full obligation to the University, and his woo stuff is essentially on his own time.

Where is your basis that his employer require him to produce data paid for by someone else?

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by davefoc
...So far there have been the following straw man arguments associated with this issue.
1. He's a good instructor so you can't fire him.
(nobody said that he should be fired)
2. He's privately funded so you can't force him to reveal data that is part of privately funded research.
(nobody said that he should be required to disclose or publish privately funded research)
3. Research funded by the military often can't be publically disclosed
(nobody said that research for the military should be subject to forced publication when it is funded by the military)
4. There may be other legitimate reasons why the researcher may not want to publish his data.
(nobody said that all researchers should be forced to publish all their data, only that in the absence of periodic publication of data that the university should be able to request an explanation for non publication of the data and to be able to withold public resources if it finds those reasons unacceptable)
Where exactly did these faux straw men appear?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Then what exactly is your point re Schwartz, who as you already know, isn't doing any of the things that you have said should trigger the demand for data?

He privately funded, he's apparently meeting his full obligation to the University, and his woo stuff is essentially on his own time.

Where is your basis that his employer require him to produce data paid for by someone else?

Because he claims scientific proof of an afterlife? Something that would topple everything we have learned so far?

Don't you think we should at least look over his shoulder, to find out how he got to that conclusion?

Should one of the biggest scientific discoveries of all time be shrouded in secrecy, because it is privately funded? Does that mean that the people funding this get the exclusive rights for this discovery?

Should Crick & Watson determine who is allowed to benefit from genetic research?

[Jeff Corey]

Claus,
I must disagree. I know my IRB has certain rules about how long one must keep data, who may have access to the data, when the data may be discarded, and so on, ad nauseum. I don't know what Schwartz's Arizona IRB may have dictated. I don't even know whether he had IRB approval.
He might be perfectly free to burn all the data with no repercussions.
But the raw data are his and he doesn't have to show them to anyone.
That's the way it works.

[steenkh]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
But the raw data are his and he doesn't have to show them to anyone.
That's the way it works.
But then, the rest of the world also has the right to claim that his data are worthless!

[drkitten]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Should one of the biggest scientific discoveries of all time be shrouded in secrecy, because it is privately funded? Does that mean that the people funding this get the exclusive rights for this discovery?


Um, yeah?

Is this really a question?

The fundamental reason behind most private funding of research is to obtain an exclusive right to a discovery. If FedEx discovered, for example, a practical method of delivering objects over digital phone lines (i.e. a Star Trek transporter), they would be able to cut their delivery times to almost nothing, reduce costs a zillion-fold, and obtain a tremendous competitive advantage over every other delivery company on the planet.

The whole reason that the patent system exists is to encourage companies to make their private discoveries public; if FedEx patented their transporter, the government agrees to help defend their exclusive rights for about twenty years, after which they lose their exclusivity. If FedEx opted not to patent, they could call it a "trade secret" and keep exclusive rights forever as long as no one else figured out how it was done. But the government wouldn't help them keep the secret.

I refer you to my examples above. Do you really think that Intel should be forced at gunpoint to show AMD how its new transistors are made?

[jmercer]

You know, I really feel that I have to ask this question again...

Setting aside issues of intellectual freedom and property rights, don't these people have the same social and legal responsibilities as the rest of us? His "findings" are providing a form of legitimacy to a fraudulent market, after all - doesn't he have any obligation to prevent that?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Claus,
I must disagree. I know my IRB has certain rules about how long one must keep data, who may have access to the data, when the data may be discarded, and so on, ad nauseum. I don't know what Schwartz's Arizona IRB may have dictated. I don't even know whether he had IRB approval.
He might be perfectly free to burn all the data with no repercussions.
But the raw data are his and he doesn't have to show them to anyone.
That's the way it works.

Could be interesting to know what Arizona's IRB says.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by new drkitten
I refer you to my examples above. Do you really think that Intel should be forced at gunpoint to show AMD how its new transistors are made?

I really, really, really don't think that your examples are comparable.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I really, really, really don't think that your examples are comparable.

Then you should have no problem telling us what the bright line is that separates them.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Then you should have no problem telling us what the bright line is that separates them.

How about answering some of the questions that humanity has asked itself throughout the times?

1) What happens when we die? Do we reincarnate, go to Heaven/Hell, or simply fade away?

2) Are we alone in the Universe?

A technological breakthrough is hardly comparable. Schwartz is claiming to have proven the first. That's a pretty big discovery.

(Rubbish removed)

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by jmercer
You know, I really feel that I have to ask this question again...

Setting aside issues of intellectual freedom and property rights, don't these people have the same social and legal responsibilities as the rest of us? His "findings" are providing a form of legitimacy to a fraudulent market, after all - doesn't he have any obligation to prevent that?


Do we really think that cures for diseases and technological breakthroughs are going to come at a better rate using those methods?

Bottom line, in real life, you get bathwater with your babies...and Schwartz is the bathwater that we cannot seperate from academic freedom and the right to conduct independent research as 'those people' see fit, without outside manipulation.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
How about answering some of the questions that humanity has asked itself throughout the times?

1) What happens when we die? Do we reincarnate, go to Heaven/Hell, or simply fade away?

2) Are we alone in the Universe?

A technological breakthrough is hardly comparable. Schwartz is claiming to have proven the first. That's a pretty big discovery.



I still dunno. Arno Penzias won the Nobel Prize for answering the question "Did the Universe have a beginning?" That seems an equally big question to me.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Do we really think that cures for diseases and technological breakthroughs are going to come at a better rate using those methods?

Bottom line, in real life, you get bathwater with your babies...and Schwartz is the bathwater that we cannot seperate from academic freedom and the right to conduct independent research as 'those people' see fit, without outside manipulation.

Are you suggesting that the ends justify the means? That we simply have to accept that some academics are going to do "bad science" that hurts people, but they should be immune from the consequences because they're doing it in the name of science and research?

Sorry, doesn't wash. (Pun intended. ;) ) In real life, people put a lot more effort into keeping the baby and discarding the bathwater. :)

Also - if your POV correctly reflects the prevailing opinion - then I'd like to know just how (and where) you draw the line for ethical conduct...

(edited for spelling)

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by jmercer
Are you suggesting that the ends justify the means? That we simply have to accept that some academics are going to do "bad science" that hurts people, but they should be immune from the consequences because they're doing it in the name of science and research?

Sorry, doesn't wash. (Pun intended. ;) ) In real life, people put a lot more effort into keeping the baby and discarding the bathwater. :)

Also - if your POV correctly reflects the prevailing opinion - then I'd like to know just how (and where) you draw the line for ethical conduct...

(edited for spelling)

In spite of my repeated requests for someone to explain exactly how they are going to get rid of Schwartz, but not get rid of other researchers with unpopular and unsupportable (at the moment) ideas, I'm going to treat this as a true dichotomy...either scientists are allowed the current level of academic freedom and protection to conduct their research, or they are not.

We don't have to accept bad science, what we have to accept is that using the criteria put forth for Schwartz, we can't tell in advance which piece of research is going to turn out to be 'bad', and which is going to turn out to be a sleeper.

So within that context, you're daaam skippy I'm going to say that the ends of getting results like Pauling, Dirac, and Prusiner justifies the means of granting the rights and freedoms of researchers.

Come up with some different criteria, and a realistic way of implementing them, and we can have a different discussion.

And the 'ethical conduct' issue, is simply moving the goalposts, since there are already known restrictions in place on that count.

[jmercer]

Hmm... Ok, yes. I apologize, the ethical conduct issue was moving the goal posts... unintentional, and I withdraw it.

And given the way you presented the issue, I also have to say that I can see why he's getting away with it. The system (by design) has self-limiting controls over governing this stuff. And I can see where imposing more comprehensive controls would destroy the beneficial results as well as the trash.

Ok, I'm convinced. You answered my original question - thanks. :)

(edited for clarity of message)

[drkitten]

Originally posted by jmercer
Are you suggesting that the ends justify the means? That we simply have to accept that some academics are going to do "bad science" that hurts people, but they should be immune from the consequences because they're doing it in the name of science and research?


I'd like to point out that no researcher has control over how people misuse and misinterpret his findings; I believe no less a person than Albert Einstein is reported to have observed, upon seeing the atomic bomb, that "had I anticipated the consequences, I would have become a watchmaker." Sciences is the process of discovering how the world works, and we have no way of knowing in advance how any bit of it works -- or to what ends other people will attempt to twist the knowledge.

If the price of scientific advancement is that some people will misuse science, then, yes, I'm perfectly happy with that trade.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by new drkitten
I'd like to point out that no researcher has control over how people misuse and misinterpret his findings; I believe no less a person than Albert Einstein is reported to have observed, upon seeing the atomic bomb, that "had I anticipated the consequences, I would have become a watchmaker." Sciences is the process of discovering how the world works, and we have no way of knowing in advance how any bit of it works -- or to what ends other people will attempt to twist the knowledge.

If the price of scientific advancement is that some people will misuse science, then, yes, I'm perfectly happy with that trade.

I fully understand what you're saying. Einstein is one of my 'heroes'... partially because of the above quote. Any scientist who's research is twisted and then speaks out against the misuse - or at least, disavows it - is fine by me.

But the ones like Schwartz that apparently support it, either by silence or outright announcements... now those, I think, need to be addressed.

But given all of the above posts, I don't know how. Maybe what Randi and JREF does is the only effective way to do it.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by jmercer

But given all of the above posts, I don't know how. Maybe what Randi and JREF does is the only effective way to do it.

One of the Founding Fathers (of the USA) -- I forget which one, Madison? -- is supposed to have said something like "the best solution to bad speech is good speech." Basically, he was defending freedom of speech as the best solution to pernicious ideas, because pernicious ideas, almost by definition, cannot compete successfully in the marketplace of ideas. Once you allow certain ideas, even good ones, to be backed up with force, you are implicitly allowing bad ones to be backed up with force as well.

Part of the problem, I believe, is that many of the participants on this forum see Dr. Schwartz as getting off scot-free for his silly science. I suppose to some extent, he is --- he will continue to draw his salary as long as he keeps teaching his classes acceptably, even if his next research paper does the equivalent of wearing its underpants on its head and saving tinfoil for when Elvis comes back. That's the price that academics, by and large, are willing to pay -- they have to share a department with nutcases like that.

However, I also suggest that you look at the big picture. Outside of a few private groups full of squirrel-food, who takes him seriously? At this point, he's established a track record -- of bad science. I can imagine the chuckles at the NSF or NIH if he ever tries to get a competitive grant based on his established research record. I think of what people would say if he applied for a job at another school and my heart does an evil little jig of glee. And I visualize what people say to him -- or go out of their way NOT to say to him -- at the American Psychological Association conferences, and (to my discredit) I'm immature enough to delight in his discomfort.

Let him have his teaching position. Because it's the last thing he'll ever have. And Randi, and the JREF, is one of the reasons that it's the last thing he'll ever have.

[jmercer]

Fair enough. :)

And thanks for the quote - I don't remember that one, but it's great! How is it that in a time where superstition was a bigger factor than even today, these guys always managed to speak the larger truths... AND get them recorded for posterity?

It always amazes me.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by new drkitten
One of the Founding Fathers (of the USA) -- I forget which one, Madison? -- is supposed to have said something like "the best solution to bad speech is good speech." Basically, he was defending freedom of speech as the best solution to pernicious ideas, because pernicious ideas, almost by definition, cannot compete successfully in the marketplace of ideas. Once you allow certain ideas, even good ones, to be backed up with force, you are implicitly allowing bad ones to be backed up with force as well.

Part of the problem, I believe, is that many of the participants on this forum see Dr. Schwartz as getting off scot-free for his silly science. I suppose to some extent, he is --- he will continue to draw his salary as long as he keeps teaching his classes acceptably, even if his next research paper does the equivalent of wearing its underpants on its head and saving tinfoil for when Elvis comes back. That's the price that academics, by and large, are willing to pay -- they have to share a department with nutcases like that.

However, I also suggest that you look at the big picture. Outside of a few private groups full of squirrel-food, who takes him seriously? At this point, he's established a track record -- of bad science. I can imagine the chuckles at the NSF or NIH if he ever tries to get a competitive grant based on his established research record. I think of what people would say if he applied for a job at another school and my heart does an evil little jig of glee. And I visualize what people say to him -- or go out of their way NOT to say to him -- at the American Psychological Association conferences, and (to my discredit) I'm immature enough to delight in his discomfort.

Let him have his teaching position. Because it's the last thing he'll ever have. And Randi, and the JREF, is one of the reasons that it's the last thing he'll ever have.
How about we put together a position paper on this issue and publish it in Claus's electronic equivatent of schmatta?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by steenkh
But then, the rest of the world also has the right to claim that his data are worthless!

Sure you have that right, but how rational is it to form a notion beforehand. That is, to say the data are worthless before analyzing the data?

[Pidge]

Originally posted by jzs
Sure you have that right, but how rational is it to form a notion beforehand. That is, to say the data are worthless before analyzing the data?

Let's say Prof A. states that "The moon is made of green cheese"

Now, others may disagree, and require that Prof A. backs his conclusion that "The moon is made of green cheese" with data.

This is called "peer review".

If Prof A. is unable or unwilling to provide said data for independant review, then his conclusion that "The moon is made of green cheese" is merely his own opinion/understanding/belief/delusion (delete non-applicable)

Any data Prof A. may have may as well be worthless if Prof A. will not provide the data for independant review.

The problem with the Schwartz is that he has widely (wildly??) published his conclusion(s) without (perceived) appropriate peer review of the data supporting his conclusion(s).

Unfortunately, only a minority of the population grasp the scientific method, so no matter how much those of us who understand it try to point out that his conclusions are not supported by independant review of the source data and are thus merely his opinions, the fruit-loops and woo-woos, who a) make up the majority of the population and b) (more worringly) vote :O, have their unshakelable beliefs and delusions reinforced.

The impact of Schwartz claims is the problem.

Galileo had the a similar problem - the people around him could not dis-assemble the beliefs and or understand the data he was presenting. Maybe that is what Schwartz fears. On the otherhand, Randi's + other experience with the types of experiments being carried out make them highly critical of those claims, and they do understand the methods and data involved.

*sigh*

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Pidge

Any data Prof A. may have may as well be worthless if Prof A. will not provide the data for independant review.


"may", I agree. But without seeing the actual data, who is to really know?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by jzs


"may", I agree. But without seeing the actual data, who is to really know? [/B]

This is where concepts like "the best available evidence" come into play. If the good doctor is unwilling to make his research data available for public scrutiny, we are at liberty -- in fact, required -- to make inferences based on the data that we have, which includes the fact that he's unwilling to make his data available, or even to explain why.

For example, one datum is that his published research methods are extremely sloppy. Another datum is that his funding sources are questionable (and of questionable trustworthiness) -- people distrust studies funded by the Tobacco Institute for good reason. Another datum is that the results that he claims to have gotten are highly (to say the least) unusual, and that no one has ever been able to replicate them. He has been unable to publish these findings in high-profile peer-reviewed journals (which suggests that other scientists have issues with his methodology -- another data), and we (or more accurately Randi and company) have evidence (data) on tape directly suggesting a method by which trickery could have been used to manipulate his data.

If I tell you that I have a rabid wolverine in my desk drawer, but refuse to let you look in the drawer, you don't have to sit on the fence in a Buddha-like state of detachment. Ask yourself : is drkitten the sort of person who keeps rabid wolverines around, or the sort of person who would tell me that just to watch my head spin? You might not "know" the answer, but you would certainly know which way to bet.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
How about we put together a position paper on this issue and publish it in Claus's electronic equivatent of schmatta?

In the abstract, I think this is an excellent idea (although I personally don't have the time to devote to it that it merits). I might even be willing to vet a pre-pub draft, if you ask nicely.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
How about we put together a position paper on this issue and publish it in Claus's electronic equivatent of schmatta?

Deadline's the 26th, 6-eyes.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Deadline's the 26th, 6-eyes.
Lens replacement last summer. Now I only need glasses for reading.

[Kopji]

Sorry, I suppose I do not understand the academic stance that tenure means they are free to do whatever they want.

Expect to be challenged when asking for tax increases

My perspective is a simple one: I don't really care about your job security, I do care about students being taught well.

I don't need to see his data. When he publicly endorses a psychic because she got a hit with 'I do not walk alone', I've got a pretty good clue to what the rest is like.

The answer I'm reading in here is that I need to suffer the fools in order to protect the wise. I reject that, and I expect more from our university system. You are there for us, and not the other way around.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Lens replacement last summer. Now I only need glasses for reading.

Lame excuse. The 26th. ;)

What happened to The Hat?

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Kopji


The answer I'm reading in here is that I need to suffer the fools in order to protect the wise. I reject that, and I expect more from our university system. You are there for us, and not the other way around.
No freakin' way. I'm not there for you in any way. I'm there for my students.
You have no say in the matter.
So bugger off.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Kopji
Sorry, I suppose I do not understand the academic stance that tenure means they are free to do whatever they want.

Expect to be challenged when asking for tax increases

My perspective is a simple one: I don't really care about your job security, I do care about students being taught well.

I don't need to see his data. When he publicly endorses a psychic because she got a hit with 'I do not walk alone', I've got a pretty good clue to what the rest is like.

The answer I'm reading in here is that I need to suffer the fools in order to protect the wise. I reject that, and I expect more from our university system. You are there for us, and not the other way around.

By the university level, it shouldn't be the job of tenured faculty to teach in a manner so that the tax paying public won't complain....the undergrads should have had at least 12 years of that before college.

College is the last chance that many students will ever have at being forced to think new and distasteful thoughts, and the faculty priority should be on that, not on pleasing the public.

Like Dick Gregory said, 'If anything I've said here has offended anyone, maybe that's what I'm here for'.

If that leaves room for charlatans, then what can I say, it is an imperfect universe.

'Take away paradox from the thinker, and you have a professor'
Soren Kiekegaard

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Lame excuse. The 26th. ;)

What happened to The Hat?
It might take longer than that. I need to get the IRB rules for the relevant areas to show the difficulties in releasing data, a problem apparently not well understood by you and others who don't have to deal with that crap.
The Hat in the Cat?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
It might take longer than that. I need to get the IRB rules for the relevant areas to show the difficulties in releasing data, a problem apparently not well understood by you and others who don't have to deal with that crap.

Note that I didn't say what month. ;)

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
The Hat in the Cat?

Wasn't it an owl or something?

[Kopji]

No freakin' way. I'm not there for you in any way. I'm there for my students.
You have no say in the matter.
So bugger off.


I'm there for my students.
This makes you exceptional. What I hear from professors in Arizona are endless complaints about how much time they are required to spend teaching instead of doing what they think a university is actually for: "research"

You have no say in the matter.
I did not mean to offend your PhD-ness, that was offered as the parent of a student helping them choose a college.
You are right though, the people who will have the biggest say in your success are not parents or taxpayers. The people who will determine the outcome of this battle do not even live in the United States.

So bugger off.
I've always thought that the best teachers are also good students: less arrogant, listen more, and talk less.

Graduates already compete in a global job marketplace and if US schools choose to teach things like John Edward's Psychic readings 101 as science, you will not need lil' ol me to explain the failure.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Kopji


Graduates already compete in a global job marketplace and if US schools choose to teach things like John Edward's Psychic readings 101 as science, you will not need lil' ol me to explain the failure.
I note a non sequitur.
It does not follow that recognizing the right of an academic to publish crap and not release the raw data leads to teaching
any such thing.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Kopji
I'm there for my students.
This makes you exceptional. What I hear from professors in Arizona are endless complaints about how much time they are required to spend teaching instead of doing what they think a university is actually for: "research"

You have no say in the matter.
I did not mean to offend your PhD-ness, that was offered as the parent of a student helping them choose a college.
You are right though, the people who will have the biggest say in your success are not parents or taxpayers. The people who will determine the outcome of this battle do not even live in the United States.

So bugger off.
I've always thought that the best teachers are also good students: less arrogant, listen more, and talk less.

Graduates already compete in a global job marketplace and if US schools choose to teach things like John Edward's Psychic readings 101 as science, you will not need lil' ol me to explain the failure.

Well. that global marketplace includes workers from countries where reading, language, math, and science skills are grasped by students well before college.

So don't expect the university professor to be your safety net for the failure of parents and schools to do the job right the first 18 years of the kid's life.

That 'Not with our tax dollars' chant didn't fix the outsourcing mess.... don't infect the universities with it.

And, as pointed out, it is a nonsequitur to the original argument.

[Kopji]

It does not follow that recognizing the right of an academic to publish crap and not release the raw data leads to teaching
any such thing.

Humm 'kopji's spewing fallacy'. Well you might be right.

He is using his positional authority as a professor at UofA to promote his ideas and promote his books as science. If I cannot infer that this activity reflects on his teaching, it is a subtle fallacy indeed.

And I don't really care about his 'raw data' or whether he publishes it or not. I'm quite sure without even seeing it that it's crap. There are pretty good examples already out in the public of what passes for 'psychic hits'. I'm thinking of making some UofA promotional bumper stickers that say 'I do not walk alone'. :)

My recent concern is the line that has been crossed with the defacto endorsement of a local 'psychic'. What if someone finally decides to sue one of these people for damage or fraud? I will find out just how much I'm in it for if the university is dragged into the fray. But I'm no lawyer.



So don't expect the university professor to be your safety net for the failure of parents and schools to do the job right the first 18 years of the kid's life.

That 'Not with our tax dollars' chant didn't fix the outsourcing mess.... don't infect the universities with it.

LOL, well pretty soon there won't be enough 'good' students to teach, so where will you be then?

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Kopji
...LOL, well pretty soon there won't be enough 'good' students to teach, so where will you be then?

That is a more real problem than you may realize.

Students are already filing complaints against faculty for making them listen to ideas they don't like...it may well be a matter of time before the entire curriculum, cradle to grave is selected by politicians, and special interest groups...

And my guess is that there will still be plenty of room for the Gary Schwartzes in that scenario, if they care to play the game...but I doubt if you will ever see a cure for cancer come out of populist universities.

[davefoc]

crimresearch wrote:Then what exactly is your point re Schwartz, who as you already know, isn't doing any of the things that you have said should trigger the demand for data?

He privately funded, he's apparently meeting his full obligation to the University, and his woo stuff is essentially on his own time.

Where is your basis that his employer require him to produce data paid for by someone else?

If Schwartz is engaging in privately funded research I don't think the university should have or does have any right to force him to do anything with the research data that he collects as a result of that privately funded research.

However if the university is supplying resources for that research then publically funded resources are being used and the public should have a right to see that its representatives can monitor that research and review the data from that research. If Schwartz wants to reimburse the university for lab space, equipment and potentially student assistants that are used with his experiments then I see no reason why the data should be considered anything other than the property of Schwarz and he and his benefactors can do what they want with it.

I think there is an issue of whether Schwartz is receiving public dollars to do research and if so can he devote all of that time to privately funded research. Can a university researcher do private research and receive a salary for that research if part of his university salary is provided for him to do research?

Finally, I think there is an issue of conflict of interest. The idea of tobacco funded research was mentioned previously. Suppose his benefactor is one of the talk to the dead media personalities who are using Schwartz as a means to publicize and/or promote their act. Does the univerity give free reign to a researcher to engage in conflict of interest research without any need for disclosure?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by davefoc

However if the university is supplying resources for that research then publically funded resources are being used and the public should have a right to see that its representatives can monitor that research and review the data from that research. If Schwartz wants to reimburse the university for lab space, equipment and potentially student assistants that are used with his experiments


... which is what "indirect costs" cover. If my reading is correct, the University of Arizona "charges" 51.5% of the "modified total direct costs", defined as "all salaries and wages, fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and subgrants and subcontracts up to the first $25,000 of each subgrant or subcontract (regardless of the period covered by the subgrant or subcontract)." This 51.5% is described as "indirect costs" and covers the general grant overhead, including lab space and general equipment. Students are usually charged as "direct costs" and named in the grant proposals.

As the University itself puts it in their PI's handbook: "The University is reimbursed for indirect costs (facilities, utilities, administration) by charging the projects at the indirect cost (F&A) rate. Indirect costs are real costs, so when indirect costs for a project are waived, institutional funds are drawn from other activities to support the indirect costs of the project.[....] Department head, dean, and VPR approvals are required for indirect cost waivers, advance payment terms waivers, and funding cost sharing. These administrators are responsible for making sure that in each transaction, the University is making the right move.

Remember accountability and beware that people are watching and keeping score on behalf of the taxpayers."




then I see no reason why the data should be considered anything other than the property of Schwarz and he and his benefactors can do what they want with it.

... which is what some of us have been saying since the first page.

[Jeff Corey]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by davefoc ...Can a university researcher do private research and receive a salary for that research if part of his university salary is provided for him to do research?...
Answer:
University professors have no part of their salary provided for doing research. It is expected in most fields and can enhance the odds of promotion and tenure, but no contract I have ever gotten requires more than my clearly defined teaching duties.
The only impact of not doing any research, which in my opinion is better than schwartzing it up, might be to deny you funds to travel to conventions (because you are not presenting reasearch) or to question your capability to carry out your sabbatical proposal.
And also, what NewDrKitten said.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
The only impact of not doing any research, which in my opinion is better than schwartzing it up

......ouch! That was mean! :D

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
might be to deny you funds to travel to conventions (because you are not presenting reasearch)

Would pleas from editors of magazines help? Statements from e.g. Dawkins and Wiseman help? I suspect you are not the only academic who has trouble convincing your head honchos of the importance - nay, necessity - of attending TAMs.

So, what do we do to get your....lot....to TAMs?

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
......ouch! That was mean! :D



Would pleas from editors of magazines help? Statements from e.g. Dawkins and Wiseman help? I suspect you are not the only academic who has trouble convincing your head honchos of the importance - nay, necessity - of attending TAMs.

So, what do we do to get your....lot....to TAMs?

Solutions would be to offer more and shorter sessions, poster sessions, and an earlier deadline.
Say, Sept. 1, get acceptances/rejections out by Sept. 15, time enough for travel funds to be denied or rejected by the Deanery and time to book enough ahead so that your airline can go bankrupt before your flight.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Solutions would be to offer more and shorter sessions, poster sessions, and an earlier deadline.
Say, Sept. 1, get acceptances/rejections out by Sept. 15, time enough for travel funds to be denied or rejected by the Deanery and time to book enough ahead so that your airline can go bankrupt before your flight.

Some of that might work! Submit it to JREF.

[Morchella]

You might consider the source. The University of Arizona is also the home of Andrew Weil. the proponant of wacko alternative medicine hooey. The UofA is losing credibility fast. Ha Ha. That place is a joke.