Quote:
|
Again unsupported, vague claim. For this to be the case, the conspiracy has to be world-wide, covering a huge number of scientists. I don't see how this can work in practice.
|
Vague??!!. Try and enter some of the labs at LLNL, Caltech, ORNL or any one of a number of institutes and you'll find yourself out on your ear. Pick the wrong lab and you'll be held in custody for national security reasons. I think I'd define that as secret. Then you have your big pharmacy labs like Bayer, Pfizer etc. Can't say they're particularly open and accountable and there's been plenty of reports about that in the media. That's just a start.
Quote:
|
Vague accusation. And how do they destroy someone's career? Please provide an example. In my experience, it is other scientists who expose fraud within science
|
I agree with you on one thing here. Sometimes it's other scientists who see the fraud being committed within science and try to expose it. It's easy enough to destroy anyone's career, let alone a scientist's, if you have the time and the resources (not necessarily position or power) to do so. How do you think you could do it??.
You may get out a publication or journal article with somewhat greater ease these days because of the plethora of avenues to do so, but who's going to listen?? Unless you get published in a widely accepted journal for your field of study, and in some cases a highly respected one, like Nature, A&A, AAJ, J of Geology etc, you might as well talk to a brick wall. You'll never be heard and you go nowhere, fast. Having your work published on some obscure site or in some obscure journal, means you're just catering to a few, if any, who'll be interested in what you have to say. Even then, it's no guarantee of success.
How do you get to be the "high priest" with so much control?? Case point: become the main editor and publisher of the magazine/journal and/or be part of the peer review committee on one of the journals/magazines etc. That's how you do it, and in the past, those positions have been blatantly abused. The ex editor for Nature was notorious for being biased towards certain researchers/institutes and was a stickler for scientific conservatism. He retired a number of years back, now.