May 17, 2023 05:16 PM
(This post was last modified: May 17, 2023 05:46 PM by C C.)
The journal "Nature" falls for autism pseudoscience
https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/...doscience/
INTRO: On May 10, 2023, the journal Nature stooped to a new low when it credulously highlighted one of the most rampant forms of pseudoscience in the world of autism. Facilitated communication, a method that was thoroughly debunked back in the 1990s, has come back, repackaged variously as rapid prompting method (RPM), spelling to communicate (S2C), or simply “using a letter board.” These variants are quickly spreading throughout the autism world. Apparently, we can count the editors of Nature among those who have been fooled by them... (MORE - details)
Increasing politicization and homogeneity in scientific funding: An analysis of NSF grants, 1990-2020 (Leif Rasmussen)
https://www.cspicenter.com/p/increasing-...-1990-2020
SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the main governmental scientific grant distributing body in the United States, with an annual budget of over $8 billion.
This report uses natural language processing to analyze the abstracts of successful grants from 1990 to 2020 in the seven fields of Biological Sciences, Computer & Information Science & Engineering, Education & Human Resources, Engineering, Geosciences, Mathematical & Physical Sciences, and Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences.
The frequency of documents containing highly politicized terms has been increasing consistently over the last three decades. As of 2020, 30.4% of all grants had one of the following politicized terms: “equity,” “diversity,” “inclusion,” “gender,” “marginalize,” “underrepresented,” or “disparity.” This is up from 2.9% in 1990. The most politicized field is Education & Human Resources (53.8% in 2020, up from 4.3% in 1990). The least are Mathematical & Physical Sciences (22.6%, up from 0.9%) and Computer & Information Science & Engineering (24.9%, up from 1.5%), although even they are significantly more politicized than any field was in 1990.
At the same time, abstracts in most directorates have been becoming more similar to each other over time. This arguably shows that there is less diversity in the kinds of ideas that are getting funded. This effect is particularly strong in the last few years, but the trend is clear over the last three decades when a technique based on word similarity, rather than the matching of exact terms, is used.
Taken together, the results imply that there has been a politicization of scientific funding in the US in recent years and a decrease in the diversity of ideas supported, indicating a possible decline in the quality of research and the potential for decreased trust towards scientific institutions among the general public. (MORE - details)
https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/...doscience/
INTRO: On May 10, 2023, the journal Nature stooped to a new low when it credulously highlighted one of the most rampant forms of pseudoscience in the world of autism. Facilitated communication, a method that was thoroughly debunked back in the 1990s, has come back, repackaged variously as rapid prompting method (RPM), spelling to communicate (S2C), or simply “using a letter board.” These variants are quickly spreading throughout the autism world. Apparently, we can count the editors of Nature among those who have been fooled by them... (MORE - details)
Increasing politicization and homogeneity in scientific funding: An analysis of NSF grants, 1990-2020 (Leif Rasmussen)
https://www.cspicenter.com/p/increasing-...-1990-2020
SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the main governmental scientific grant distributing body in the United States, with an annual budget of over $8 billion.
This report uses natural language processing to analyze the abstracts of successful grants from 1990 to 2020 in the seven fields of Biological Sciences, Computer & Information Science & Engineering, Education & Human Resources, Engineering, Geosciences, Mathematical & Physical Sciences, and Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences.
The frequency of documents containing highly politicized terms has been increasing consistently over the last three decades. As of 2020, 30.4% of all grants had one of the following politicized terms: “equity,” “diversity,” “inclusion,” “gender,” “marginalize,” “underrepresented,” or “disparity.” This is up from 2.9% in 1990. The most politicized field is Education & Human Resources (53.8% in 2020, up from 4.3% in 1990). The least are Mathematical & Physical Sciences (22.6%, up from 0.9%) and Computer & Information Science & Engineering (24.9%, up from 1.5%), although even they are significantly more politicized than any field was in 1990.
At the same time, abstracts in most directorates have been becoming more similar to each other over time. This arguably shows that there is less diversity in the kinds of ideas that are getting funded. This effect is particularly strong in the last few years, but the trend is clear over the last three decades when a technique based on word similarity, rather than the matching of exact terms, is used.
Taken together, the results imply that there has been a politicization of scientific funding in the US in recent years and a decrease in the diversity of ideas supported, indicating a possible decline in the quality of research and the potential for decreased trust towards scientific institutions among the general public. (MORE - details)