Fascinating scientific research inside!

[Upper Kirby]

Still no cure for cancer. Scientists find people who just had some coffee are "more willing to be persuaded."

Previous research has suggested that caffeine increases the brain's ability to process information. This in turn may be instrumental in producing a change in attitude.

Another possibility is that caffeine can make someone open to persuasion by improving mood. It is well known that people in a positive mood are more likely to agree with any message they are presented with, the researchers said.

 

[Flemingovia]

I'll need about 5 cups of coffee before I believe that.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

< is glad she's a tea drinker.

 

[Democratic Donkeys]

I don't drink coffee any more. I drink tea though, my favorite is peppermint.

 

[Lazy Wizard]

I drink about 4 mugs of coffee every day. Suggest me anything, let's see if I agree.

 

[Ceysil]

Newsflash: Tea is a caffeine drink! You will believe it!

 

[Democratic Donkeys]

Not decaf tea.

Newsflash: DD needs to be more specific!

 

[Byardkuria]

Now, are we talking peppermint tea, or a peppermint tisane?

 

[Ceysil]

True... but I think we can all agree that herbal tea is not, in fact, tea, as it does not contain Tea leaves. Hence it is an herbal drink, but no tea. I, myself, use the french word "tesane" for herbal beverages such as chamomille or peppermint "tea"

 

[wizardofoz01]

This is just another example of pathetically poor science.

The fact of the matter is that we waste millions of dollars on projects that seem patently obvious. For example, I read the other about research that confirms that eating more food leads to obesity. Goodlord! That's a revelation. I better book those guys some tickets to Stockholm!

Come on..

 

[Upper Kirby]

Quite often scientists will conduct a study, discover some thing they never discovered before that is either quirky or they knew already only now in a slightly different way, then a news outlet will pick up the story, report some basic information, and package it off as "New study confirms eating healthy is good for you".

Included in that is the tendancy for news outlets to portray, and readers to assume, small academic or student-led experiments (which are inexpensive, easy to administer, and often humorous) as important, lengthy studies conducted on multi-million dollar research grants by the Institution of Highly Serious Research.


Not that you aren't right about the state of science in this country, which is dismal. I for one blame the Bush administration.

 

[Sarcodina]

Not that you aren't right about the state of science in this country, which is dismal. I for one blame the Bush administration.

Ya, remember with Clinton, science was so much more awesome back then. Ya, I also think the Bush Administration is to blame for pretty much everything...ya, that's true. Bush has ruined science. He hasn't funded enough about global warming and stem cells, so now the scientific community is practically dead. Its like he has sucked the lifeblood out of everything.
Ya, totally *goes to get more high*

 

[Upper Kirby]

Not that you aren't right about the state of science in this country, which is dismal. I for one blame the Bush administration.

Ya, remember with Clinton, science was so much more awesome back then. Ya, I also think the Bush Administration is to blame for pretty much everything...ya, that's true. Bush has ruined science. He hasn't funded enough about global warming and stem cells, so now the scientific community is practically dead. Its like he has sucked the lifeblood out of everything.
Ya, totally *goes to get more high*

This is not what I look like in a mirror.




Politics and Science in the Bush Administration. House Government Reform Committee, August 2003.

Scientific Integrity in Policy Making: Investigation of the Bush administration's abuse of science. Union of Concerned Scientists, February 2004.

Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking. Union of Concerned Scientists.

When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions. This has been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the government’s own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice. Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so wide a front. Furthermore, in advocating policies that are not scientifically sound, the administration has sometimes misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies.

Statement Signatories, as listed by the Union of Concerned Scientists. It's a searchable index of more than 8,000 signatures, including 49 Nobel laureates, 171 members of the National Academy of Sciences, 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science.

Bush Distorts Science. Wired, February 18 2004.

Despite the Environmental Protection Agency's claims that air quality was safe, Kevin refused to return and we closed the office. Many workers did not have that option; their employers relied on the EPA's nine press releases between September and December of 2001 reassuring the public about the wholesome air quality downtown. We have since learned that the government was lying to us. An Inspector General's report released last August revealed that the EPA's data did not support those assurances and that its press releases were being drafted or doctored by White House officials intent on reopening Wall Street.

The Junk Science of George W. Bush. The Nation, March 2004.

Climate change, the value of “abstinence-only” sex education (which prohibits any mention of contraceptives) and the promotion of a non-existent link between breast cancer and abortion are all areas where questionable procedures are said to have been employed. In all these cases, [national science advisor] Dr Marburger's response has failed to convince most of his critics.

Science and the Bush Administration: Cheating Nature? The Economist, April 2004.

Science and the Bush Administration: Science and policy -- It's an issue of trust. SFGate.com (editorial), April 2004.

Bush Administration Fails Science, History, Logic. Civilities.net, May 2004. Click here to hear the episode of "This American Life" references.

[National science advisor] Marburger's explanation, said Kurt Gottfried, chairman of the UCS board of directors, "is not plausible. Our report explains in detail why that chapter was dropped. The White House ordered the [EPA] officials to censor that chapter to an extent that the EPA refused to publish it." The incident first appeared in the New York Times, Gottfried said, and was based on a leaked EPA memorandum about the White House censorship efforts. Other government officials have since confirmed the events took place, he added.

Marburger Refutes Claims That Bush Administration Misuses Science: White House rebuttal fails to persuade many in the science community.. Physics Today, May 2004.

Political Science. Center for American Progress, July 2004.

Earlier this month, the New York Times reported that a White House official repeatedly edited federal climate reports to exaggerate the degree of uncertainty about global warming

Science: Scientists and Bush administration at odds. USNews.com, June 2005.

BUSH AIDE EDITED CLIMATE REPORTS. New York Times, June 2005.

Bush endorses 'intelligent design': Contends theory should be taught with evolution. Boston Globe, August 2005.

The struggle over science. Hold Evans, August 2005.

All of this activity has been triggered by repeated charges that the Bush administration has reached a new low in its willingness to twist and undermine scientific information to suit desired policy objectives. Such accusations have a four-year history, stretching from early concerns over whether the administration would even name a science adviser, through 2001 debates over stem cells and global warming, past reports complied by members of Congress denouncing the administration's meddling with science going on at federal agencies and the composition of scientific advisory committees, and

Science wars II: science and the Bush administration. Skeptical Inquirer (via findarticles.com), Nov-Dev 2005.

In one call, George Deutsch, a recently appointed public affairs officer at NASA headquarters, rejected a request from a producer at National Public Radio to interview [top climate expert] Dr. Hansen, said Leslie McCarthy, a public affairs officer responsible for the Goddard Institute.

Citing handwritten notes taken during the conversation, Ms. McCarthy said Mr. Deutsch called N.P.R. "the most liberal" media outlet in the country. She said that in that call and others, Mr. Deutsch said his job was "to make the president look good" and that as a White House appointee that might be Mr. Deutsch's priority.

Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him. New York Times, January 2006.

In the Bush administration, the spin doctors spit on science. The Oregonian, April 2006.

Faced with inconvenient scientific information, the Bush Administration just hits delete. This according to an explosive new report by Representative Henry Waxman, which catalogues dozens of politically driven affronts to objective scientific inquiry--from the recent Environmental Protection Agency report that was purged of information on global warming to the biased rewrite of a National Cancer Institute web page that once debunked alleged links between abortions and breast cancer. The Administration "has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings," says the report, precipitating "misleading statements by the president, inaccurate responses to Congress...erroneous international communications and the gagging of scientists."
...
The manipulation has extended to scientific research itself: As the New York Times revealed in April, scientists are being advised to "cleanse" certain words from their federal grant applications--basic terms of HIV epidemiology like "men who have sex with men," "sex worker" and "needle exchange."

And when all else fails, the Administration has simply preached: In February, a hundred CDC researchers on sexually transmitted diseases were summoned to Washington by HHS deputy secretary Claude Allen for a daylong affair consisting entirely of speakers extolling abstinence until marriage. There were no panels or workshops, just endless testimonials, including one by a young woman calling herself "a born-again virgin."

Science Gets Sacked. Bushandscience.blogspot.com. "A resource to document where George Bush is placing ideology before science."

President George W. Bush's economic policies have severely harmed prospects for utilizing the Federal R&D portfolio as a tool for enhancing American economic competitiveness. Not surprisingly from a President who said during his campaign that "the jury is still out on evolution", this administration's politicization and misuse of science have made it increasingly difficult for science to play its rightful role in public policy making. This situation will not change until the American people elect a leader who respects the value and integrity of science more than the self-interest of his political allies and special interest backers.

Scientists and Engineers for Change.

 

[Sarcodina]

I don't feel those articles even try to prove that Bush has ruined the scientific community. Just b/c he doesn't fund certain projects for dubious (or not so dubious) reasons doesn't mean he has ruined science.

I mean what president has funded everything nor not been somewhat political in his choosing of scientific funding. Also, some of the things mentioned are sources of debate in the general community and not really for the 'scientists' to decide. Take for example abstinence-only education...that's more like sociology etc.

 

[Upper Kirby]

I don't feel those articles even try to prove that Bush has ruined the scientific community. Just b/c he doesn't fund certain projects for dubious (or not so dubious) reasons doesn't mean he has ruined science.

It looks like you have not even read my post. Go back and look through it again, particularly the links here, here, and here.

My post had nothing to do with the funding or non-funding of various liberal causes, it was about the very integrity of science itself being spit on, in favor of a rigidly adhered to zealot dogma and political cronyism.

If you had read the excerpt I provided from The Nation, this administration has deliberately falsified information given to the public which clearly endangered the lives and health of millions of people in New York City and the surrounding area. In most civilized society, nations followed the "Social Contract" largely, publicly officials in the executive branch whose administration does that sort of thing are typically expected to be impeached.

Here is another charge:

In making the invalid claim that Iraq had sought to acquire aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment centrifuges, the administration disregarded the contrary assessment by experts at Livermore, Los Alamos and Oak Ridge National Laboratories.

The Bush Administration's refusal to accept scientific results it does not want to hear (some people call that being "divorced from reality") launched a disasterous and costly war that has ended thousands of lives. I'm not making the claim we should or should not have invaded Iraq; regardless of that outcome he should have listened to truthful facts and ensure that the public had access to correct information. His refusal to do so was criminally irresponsible in my opinion.

---

Also, some of the things mentioned are sources of debate in the general community and not really for the 'scientists' to decide. Take for example abstinence-only education...that's more like sociology etc.

To which I reference:

The Administration has taken special pains to shield Vice President Dick Cheney's old company, Halliburton, which is part of an industry that has contributed $58 million to Republicans since 2000. Halliburton is the leading practitioner of a process used in extracting oil and gas known as hydraulic fracturing, in which benzene is injected into underground formations. EPA scientists studying the process in 2002 found that it could contaminate ground-water supplies in excess of federal drinking water standards. A week after reporting their findings to Congressional staff members, however, they revised the data to indicate that benzene levels would not exceed government standards. In a letter to Representative Henry Waxman, EPA officials said the change was made based on "industry feedback."

As to your sociology charge, I think you should read (again) this except. It goes beyond the defense "this is a source of debate in the general community" into the inappropriately politicized and downright asinine:

The manipulation has extended to scientific research itself: As the New York Times revealed in April, scientists are being advised to "cleanse" certain words from their federal grant applications--basic terms of HIV epidemiology like "men who have sex with men," "sex worker" and "needle exchange."

And when all else fails, the Administration has simply preached: In February, a hundred CDC researchers on sexually transmitted diseases were summoned to Washington by HHS deputy secretary Claude Allen for a daylong affair consisting entirely of speakers extolling abstinence until marriage. There were no panels or workshops, just endless testimonials, including one by a young woman calling herself "a born-again virgin."

---

I mean what president has funded everything nor not been somewhat political in his choosing of scientific funding.

The majority have been far, far more responsible than this current administration. It is quite clear that there is something special about this current administration that makes its sense of scientific integrity, and so many other things, sink below the rest.


The Union of Concerned Scientists, in fact, makes an appeal to Bush the Elder:

Science, like any field of endeavor, relies on freedom of inquiry; and one of the hallmarks of that freedom is objectivity. Now, more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research to genetic engineering to food additives, government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance.

President George H.W. Bush, April 23, 1990​

 

[Cthul Murgos]

Tea, Earl Grey, hot.

 

[Lazy Wizard]

[EXPERIMENT]meantime... I just had my 2 mugs of coffee for the evening. I agree with whatever I am reading at the moment. Afternoons I argue with you people here, so coffee has an effect on me. [/EXPERIMENT]

 

[wizardofoz01]

I don't feel those articles even try to prove that Bush has ruined the scientific community. Just b/c he doesn't fund certain projects for dubious (or not so dubious) reasons doesn't mean he has ruined science.

I mean what president has funded everything nor not been somewhat political in his choosing of scientific funding. Also, some of the things mentioned are sources of debate in the general community and not really for the 'scientists' to decide. Take for example abstinence-only education...that's more like sociology etc.

I think it might be hard to say that Bush has ruined science.. That's going a little too far.

However, I agree with Kirby that science is getting a short shrift.. Society cannot expect bioscientists, for example, to turn out cures when funding for such critical institutes such as the NIH (National Institutes of Health) has remained flat over the past few years. It seems that many people expect science to save them when they're in trouble, but when they're not, they don't bother to listen at all.

On the other hand, I personally feel that scientists do a tremendously poor job of communicating to the "average guy", so part of it is clearly the fault of the scientific community. We need to be more active in getting ideas out there in an understandable format so politicians have no excuse not to listen to us.

There are numerous ventures that are legitimate science that aren't being funded at appropriate levels. I mean, I would be very glad if basic research wasn't expensive, but it is. Reagents used for experiments in the lab that I work in routinely are measured in the hundreds of dollars, and that reagent can probably only be used maybe a dozen times or less. The added unpredictability inherent in science also makes it expensive. But there are things worth funding, for example, the development of an AIDS vaccine.

Part of the problem is that science is largely dependent on government to fund basic research. Industry is often loathe to fund things that will not turn into marketable products. The problem with that is, very few discoveries that have become scientific products ever start out with that potential. Furthermore, simply because something will never be turned into a drug doesn't mean that information is not worth knowing. So really there's no other alternative -- scientists don't have a money well out back that they can go to. When government funding of places like the NIH stagnates, there's a trickle-down effect. The NIH then has less money to give out as grants to academic institutions, which means competition to get a grant is more fierce, which then means that only a small fraction of labs that deserve to get a grant actually do so.

And that eventually causes a major problem at academic institutions in particular. Industry is less effected because their money source is more "reliable" -- their investors. I know for a fact that the Ph.D.'s being trained now at academic institutions largely don't want to stick around in academia because of the daily battle to get money. If this continues to happen on a large scale, then qualified professors in the sciences will disappear from major institutions as well.

 

[Cthul Murgos]

::decides to make Wiz a freaking av already::

 

[Byardkuria]

I will argue with CM, only to say that the middle part should read Lapsang Souchong.

 

[Ceysil]

Bush is an asshole, all in favor?

< is knocked over by the sheer volume of "Aye"s

Whoo....

now, who wants a cup of joe?

 

[Sarcodina]

With those like Ceysil, how have the democrats not done better ? (j/k)

I do agree with Wiz largely. I think science b/c of its close knit relation with the gov't has been largely corrupted. I mean that golden era of science when the gov'ts of Europe wouldn't fund was largely so sucessful out of the scientists doing it for the sake of science, for the sake of knowledge not as a paying job. The scientific community has really sold out and b/c of the environment of its sugar daddy (the gov't) is paying the consequences.

I am not nearly an expert on any scientific field, but scientists often appear to be extracting gov't funds rather aggressively when they give information publically. It makes it very sketchy in that regard quite like charities that depend on gov't funds (it can sell out the good nature of such an organization). A lot of studies that constantly draw different conclusions on popular items in what appears to be a gain of popularity etc. and the ever increasing of popular money-making drugs as opposed to life-saving drugs that are less profitable etc. are just some of the things that make modern science (*gasp* even if Bush had never been elect) in need of relooking at itself.

And finally, not that there are concerns on Bush's science record, but I hardly imagine an organization of 'concerned scientists' is most reliable source. If all (or even a quarter) of the scientists that are denied funding got together for example under any administration, it'd be an impressive group.

 

[Upper Kirby]

A lot of studies that constantly draw different conclusions on popular items in what appears to be a gain of popularity etc. and the ever increasing of popular money-making drugs as opposed to life-saving drugs that are less profitable etc. are just some of the things that make modern science (*gasp* even if Bush had never been elect) in need of relooking at itself.

You phrase that, judging by the Bush aside, as a response to me. The problem is your statement is not a response at all to anything I've said.

And finally, not that there are concerns on Bush's science record, but I hardly imagine an organization of 'concerned scientists' is most reliable source.

One of the Bush administration's most pervasive criticisms is that it typically responds to any allegations of faults or mistakes within that administration with circumstantial ad hominems which paint in broad stroaks its critics as partisan, not credible, or otherwise politically or personally motivated. Nevermind facts; facts be damned.

"What's all this talk about corruption here, and the huge and well-verified papertrial of supposed 'evidence'? Sounds like just a bunch of sore librals with nothin' better to do than fabricate evidence slandering the good name of H. R. Haldeman to me. I don't think we ought to pay this any mind." Why is this bad? Because it is a mental track which soon divorces one's conclusions from reality, because such rhetoric is rarely employed with honest intentions, because it is dangerous, and because it is championed by both the lazy and stupid.

You've done the same thing.

The Union of Concerned Scientists was founded in 1969 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology by students and faculty. Its current membership totals more than 100,000 concerned citizens and scientists. The petition I referenced (had you read my post you would have known this already) has now more than 8,000 signatures, including 49 Nobel laureates, 171 members of the National Academy of Sciences, 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science. In fact, if you want to you can even look up the names of every single person who's signed the petition so far right here.

I do not imagine this organization of 'concerned scientists' to be an unreliable source at all.

If all (or even a quarter) of the scientists that are denied funding got together for example under any administration, it'd be an impressive group.

Methinks you've missed the point.

 

[Unterwasserseestaat]

Well, then. First, to the initial post about the story: It might be an interesting link that people with more active brains can be better persuaded, the problem is that we can't tell if the caffiene put the students being tested into a better mood, or simply led the students to pay more attention to the argument put before them. This in particular was a study with 140 Australian students and was probably the result of a class project to get experience in data collection.

On the more recent posts, I think it's important to say that people are concerned about the Bush Administration playing politics with the results of scientific research, which is a far greater concern than what sorts of research gets funding to begin with (if you're going to ignore the results, why do the project to begin with?). Also, a good sized chunk of money for research does come from industry and that which does come from the government is distributed by many agencies. Most lawmakers probably can't understand what most research actually means well enough to make it a political issue.

 

[wizardofoz01]

I am not nearly an expert on any scientific field, but scientists often appear to be extracting gov't funds rather aggressively when they give information publically. It makes it very sketchy in that regard quite like charities that depend on gov't funds (it can sell out the good nature of such an organization). A lot of studies that constantly draw different conclusions on popular items in what appears to be a gain of popularity etc. and the ever increasing of popular money-making drugs as opposed to life-saving drugs that are less profitable etc. are just some of the things that make modern science (*gasp* even if Bush had never been elect) in need of relooking at itself.

And finally, not that there are concerns on Bush's science record, but I hardly imagine an organization of 'concerned scientists' is most reliable source. If all (or even a quarter) of the scientists that are denied funding got together for example under any administration, it'd be an impressive group.

The central problem is of course the fact that legitimate scientists can't go anywhere else except to the government for dependable funding.. At least that's what the situation USED to be.

Unterwasserseestaat mentions that a good chunk of funding does come from industry, which may be true.. but industry by its very nature will only fund things that may become products. That's not slamming industry by any means -- it's a necessary result of what happens in for-profit companies.. And furthermore, consider that drug companies spend on average $1 billion to churn out a single POSSIBLE drug, with no guarantee it will ever go on the market (not to mention the average 10 years it takes to get a drug to the market). So they really can't be blamed for trying to recoup their investment. But nonetheless there is a huge gap.

For example, many college students interested in science today will have to make a pretty disgusting choice in their careers.. either stay in academic institutions and compete furiously with colleagues for an ever-shrinking pool of money from the government.. OR go into industry where the money is much more guaranteed, but the scientific FREEDOM to do projects of one's liking is drastically diminished.

That's why I've always believed that communication by scientists to the outside world is crucial. If scientists don't bother to inform those "in charge" of what's really going on in scientific research, then we lose the right to blame them when funding gets cut short, or funding goes to rather obvious projects (like the initial newslink). And part of that is the fact that governments don't realize the expense of research, especially biomedical research. Funds are allocated based on the idea that it takes X dollars to investigate a certain hypothesis. But that's not how science works; in science, everything is tested because even if you receive data that is not in support of your hypothesis, that is still information. Science is NOT done by following one line of investigation blindly to the end.