A biochemist claims that the private sector produces some of the “best technology.”
Biochemistry doctor Terence Kealey, who is opposed to popular opinion, thinks that scientific research would benefit from more government money.
Contrary to Kealey, some scientists and researchers are outraged by the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce research grants, mostly those that are ideologically focused, through the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Agriculture, and various organizations.
During” Stand Up for Knowledge” demonstrations in March of this year, apparently, thousands of people protested.
However, the University of Buckingham teacher emeritus and Cato Institute researcher believes that the dependence on federal funding for research has hampered economic development.
In a recent interview with the republican Reason Magazine, Kealey claimed that if the federal funds science, it really takes the best scientists out of the industry and places them in the universities, which causes industry to suffer.
The conversation continued:
Process frequently predominates over outcomes in scientific technology. Researchers are encouraged to publish peer-reviewed papers that receive citations, which helps them safe more governmental grants and prominent academic positions.
According to Kealey ( pictured ),” What happens under peer review under the government is that there’s homogenization and only one set of ideas is allowed to emerge.”
A positive discrimination has been created as a result of the pressure to publish, with an increasing number of papers outlining a hypothesis and burying bad findings. …
John Ioannidis, a professor at Stanford University, blatantly stated in a resonant 2005 paper that “most published research results are fake. He argued that the latest peer review system encourages groupthink and that “prestigious researchers may reduce findings that refute their findings through the peer review process, demonizing their field and perpetuating false dogma.”
According to Kealey, “you end up with a unified view, which causes you to undermine what is so crucial in science, which is the competing ideas of different viewpoints.”
Additionally, Jay Bhattacharya, a professor at Stanford University who received criticism for opposing the dominant narratives surrounding COVID-19, expressed concerns about politics and revenue for government study.
They have control over the minds of so many scientists if you have an NIH director who [sets plan and distributes money. Nobody is going to definitely communicate, and there is an inherent conflict. Because that’s the cash cow, no one will agree with them, according to Bhattacharya, the new chairman of the National Institutes of Health, in a statement to Reason.
The British government “basically didn’t account science” until World War II, Kealey told the Accad and Koka Report radio in 2021.
Without the assistance of the government, Reason claimed, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, and the Wright Brothers produced some of the world’s most significant ideas.
Kealey said he does not oppose the government funding for clinical studies as a whole, but that more of it should be privatized.
We have some of the best knowledge, he told Reason.” If you look at, especially, 19th century Britain where knowledge was completely in the private business, we have some of the best science,” he said.
Less: U.C. distributes DEI offers to increase diversity in marine science and math
A scholar is positioned close to a magnification. Cato Institute, Suwannabar Kavil/Canva,
Follow The College Fix on Twitter and Like us on Twitter.
