sigh OK, acknowledged and accepted.
CDC should be collecting data that is shared for others to use in their research - absolutely. They should also fund research by others using their data set.
Ah! So research should be properly conducted and vetted? I doubt anyone disagrees with that, but if anyone does, we will alert you.
Yeah this surprised me too.
So you don’t think SCIENTISTS can be objective? You know the CDC is filled with active military folks, right?
Yeah pretty much. Once other experts in teh field have lookeda t it and passed on it, its hard for me (a layman) to contradict it based on my gut feelings. Sure peer review can fail and bias can creep in but it is FAR less common in a peer reviewed setting than otherwise.
Is there a reason you have taken this tone with me in this thread?
Yes, indeed, its because you offered the insinuation that because so many academics are of a liberal persuasion, that renders their work suspect. Whether you offer this because you think progressives are inherently less intelligent than conservatives, or less honest, is not a concern. Nor do you offer any reason to believe you beyond your personal anecdotal experience and dark suspicions. Either way, it is simply wrong. And I don’t much feel like letting you get away with it.
Gotcha. Noted, recorded, filed away with other nonsense and frivolity.
Per 'luci, anything an academic says that is peer reviewed is God’s own truth, and the source should never be questioned.
Cite the smart people tend to be progressive?
You pointed out yourself that academics overwhelmingly lean Democratic. Just saying. 
Yes. That is a fact. If facts are not welcome in GD, let me know.
Now, if everyone wants to claim that party registration is irrelevant and never impacts the direction of research, that is fine. I disagree, but that what debates are all about.
The point I mentioned before is that currently the direction of research is being impacted by the party registration of the law makers.
I have seen articles were the political affiliation of scientists has become so lopsided because of the current [del]inquisition[/del] opposition of Republicans to science that is inconvenient to them or their constituents. The numbers that you are seeing are also in part the result of scientists encountering that even if they are Republicans the current crop of Republican congress critters are very hostile to them.
As I mentioned before, the consensus of the climate scientists on AGW is so big that it is not rare to find also Republican scientists that look at the science and report that indeed we have to reduce our emissions or face really bad consequences, they can tell you what is going on when they encounter the current Republican base.
Here’s a old but pretty good read on the BS that was coming out of CDC way back then. I remember it clearly. You had a bunch of “researchers” who clearly, and sometimes admittedly, had personal biases against guns, and spewed out one junk “study” after another to support their agendas. This stuff was so bad it would have been laughable, if it wasn’t being used to strip people of their rights. Finally Congress got sick of it and pretty much said “no more agenda-driven BS masquerading as research on the taxpayers’ dime.”
Really. This stuff was so bad, I’m convinced that it’s one of the reasons that lots of conservatives don’t trust “research” and science today.
As a gun owner, I have these conversations with a few friends (including one at the CDC, who is in the pediatric field (mostly immunization)). The reason for their “bias” is that they only see one side of the equation.
There is a lot of evidence to support the notion that a lot of successful suicide and gun related death could be avoided if there were no guns in society. They don’t see any of the benefits of having guns in society, so naturally they are as biased as the folks who see the environmental cost of oil and don’t mind living like the Amish.
Right, and as epidemiologists they have no special insight into the negative externalities of the gun confiscation procedure, either. It’s not a proper subject for the CDC and only attracts agendas; the ban makes perfect sense.
That makes sense. However, as I often say “One of a man’s greatest strengths is the ability to recognize his own weaknesses.”
Said nobody, ever. Apparently you hope to gain some credibility be firmly rebutting the most absurd position possible. Point out for us, if you can, who said that political leaning never, ever has an impact on the direction of research. Take your time, let us now.
Just guessing here, don’t really know what you mean by “negative externalities of the gun confiscation procedure”, but I get the creepy feeling you mean something like the casualties that would result from jackboot injuries.
So now party registration Should be considered? Think on this. You appear to be confused as to what side you are taking.
Or so someone might infer.
Gee - maybe because that is what you inferred.
Are you now stating that political leanings can have an impact on research?