Another example is the hysteria about radioactivity and radiation. Hermann Muller conducted flawed research (blasting fruit files with X-rays at 50 million times background levels) and when his interpretation (linear extrapolation to zero without any low-level or low-dose-rate experiments) was exposed as incorrect (he had blasted out entire genes, not caused genetic modifications), he abused his detractors. Barbara McClintock proved he was wrong, but the Nobel Committee gave him a prize anyway. Then Detlev Bronk, who was simultaneously president of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research (now Rockefeller University) and president of the National Academy of Sciences arranged for Rockefeller to provide generous funding for NAS to form the first Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation — BEAR-1 — committee. Dean Rusk was the Rockefeller board member who wrote the letter to Eisenhower to get the ball rolling. One of the six panels was a genetics panel, which fully supported Muller's errors, and the chair was Muller's acolyte Warren Spencer from Rochester, who had conducted a flawed acute-dose study with Curt Stern. This panel's reports, which Britain rejected, are the reason for hysteria about nuclear power, and the reason the examiner puts a ridiculous lead blanket on you before a dental X-ray.
NAS wasn't alone in magnifying and perpetrating this fraud. Science magazine eagerly published Muller's work, and even now refuses to retract it. Marcia McNutt was the editor-in-chief who refused to retract the papers when Jerry Cuttler and Ed Calabrese sent her letters proving the fraud. She went on to become the 22nd president of the NAS.
Details in Section 9.1.1 my book "Where Will We Get Our Energy?" Everything quantified. No vague handwaving. 350 bibliographic citations allow readers to verify I didn't simply make up stuff.
Who does the rating of scientists? Egos and self-importance tend to be high among many well-regarded scientists. And they are cliquish; e.g., Martha McNutt and company. Ben Santer thinks highly of himself and demeans the likes of Koonin, Curry, Christen, and Spenser.
Marty: There is a challange to any new idea. My suggestion is that after they clearly establish what Real Science is, then scientists are rated by their adherence to it.
Another example is the hysteria about radioactivity and radiation. Hermann Muller conducted flawed research (blasting fruit files with X-rays at 50 million times background levels) and when his interpretation (linear extrapolation to zero without any low-level or low-dose-rate experiments) was exposed as incorrect (he had blasted out entire genes, not caused genetic modifications), he abused his detractors. Barbara McClintock proved he was wrong, but the Nobel Committee gave him a prize anyway. Then Detlev Bronk, who was simultaneously president of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research (now Rockefeller University) and president of the National Academy of Sciences arranged for Rockefeller to provide generous funding for NAS to form the first Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation — BEAR-1 — committee. Dean Rusk was the Rockefeller board member who wrote the letter to Eisenhower to get the ball rolling. One of the six panels was a genetics panel, which fully supported Muller's errors, and the chair was Muller's acolyte Warren Spencer from Rochester, who had conducted a flawed acute-dose study with Curt Stern. This panel's reports, which Britain rejected, are the reason for hysteria about nuclear power, and the reason the examiner puts a ridiculous lead blanket on you before a dental X-ray.
NAS wasn't alone in magnifying and perpetrating this fraud. Science magazine eagerly published Muller's work, and even now refuses to retract it. Marcia McNutt was the editor-in-chief who refused to retract the papers when Jerry Cuttler and Ed Calabrese sent her letters proving the fraud. She went on to become the 22nd president of the NAS.
Details in Section 9.1.1 my book "Where Will We Get Our Energy?" Everything quantified. No vague handwaving. 350 bibliographic citations allow readers to verify I didn't simply make up stuff.
VS: Yes, that is another good example of NAS/NRC unscientifiicness.
Who does the rating of scientists? Egos and self-importance tend to be high among many well-regarded scientists. And they are cliquish; e.g., Martha McNutt and company. Ben Santer thinks highly of himself and demeans the likes of Koonin, Curry, Christen, and Spenser.
Marty: There is a challange to any new idea. My suggestion is that after they clearly establish what Real Science is, then scientists are rated by their adherence to it.