Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Is scientific cooperation with Europe decreasing ?

Well, the point is similar to those made before Brexit; that changes initially may seem to hamper, but once adapted to the future will be brighter than it would have been otherwise. Some here disbelieve that.

Jul 28, 2016 at 1:09 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Alan Kendall, uncertainty in any market creates a lack of confidence. Scientific research has become a competitive market for both supply and demand. The EU is not the only customer within rhe UK, Europe, the rest of the World prepared to pay for research. Some research is limited to funding it receives from the EU, because nobody else is willing to fund it.

I agree that short term uncertainty is occurring. It was inevitable. It was also inevitable that some would portray all consequences as being bad.

Jul 28, 2016 at 1:39 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Certainty is an illusion. Tomorrow is promised to no-one.

Jul 28, 2016 at 2:43 PM | Unregistered Commenterrhoda

Jul 28, 2016 at 1:09 PM | kim
For those of us sceptical of the prophecies of experts the watchwords are time will tell.

Jul 28, 2016 at 3:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

@Kim that was a nuanced and intelligent comment about "In the short term", "in the long run" , and uncertainty.
- I did wonder why the gov has held off making any firm statements to end uncertainty like saying "all stuff previously funded by EU including the UK will now be funded by the "EU plus UK", but I guess silence is preparing the ground to put the frighteners on some people so that they don't become complacent, and make them realise that they should be able to show worthiness of their projects to new spending evaluators.

"Those statements are disbelieved by many here" , a statement like that is exactly the kind of false certainty we are talking about. When someone asks for more evidence is wrong to extrapolate that to mean "they don't believe me"

Jul 28, 2016 at 4:11 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Heh, rhoda, my comment for the youngins is that dawn is a trigger warning.

Jul 28, 2016 at 4:51 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Double heh, heh, stewgreen. As often, golf charlie expresses it better.

Jul 28, 2016 at 4:54 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

"Those statements are disbelieved by many here"

Gosh, is he still at it?

We don't know:
- who made the statements
- what they said
- what it was that had been or would be impacted
- what level of certainty had been expressed that things would be impacted
- what time scale was involved (something that would not go ahead next week .... or in two years from now)
- what scale of cooperation was involved
- prior to the Brexit vote what level of cooperation had been anticipated
- what was the level of prior cooperation involved over say the past five years

So there is essentially nothing to believe or to disbelieve, other than somebody said something to AK that AK says provides evidence that Brexit is decreasing scientific cooperation with Europe.

Jul 28, 2016 at 5:32 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Martin A. As I wrote from the outset, it is stupid to discuss this topic NOW because there is no way that the necessary evidence, acceptable to you, is going to become available. Evidence, in the form of media reports, continues to accmulate. It is poor and suspect evidence, but there is no contra evidence. Without this contra evidence you impune those who have made statements in the media. Find that contra evidence and I will join you and others here.

Dizzy. I see that you wish to continue trying to make fun at my expense. What a jerk you sometimes can be.

Jul 28, 2016 at 6:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan kendall

Alan kendall
Like all Brexit related issues Time Will Tell, for the moment it is 100% conjecture. Including a snap election when Corbyn is re-elected Labour Party leader and then he wins said election.

Jul 28, 2016 at 11:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

SandyS, no frivolity now. We are trying to be serious while BH is away.

Jul 29, 2016 at 12:18 AM | Unregistered Commenterrhoda

SandyS. Such nightmares require Freudian analysis. rhoda should have taken your symptoms far more seriously.

Jul 29, 2016 at 5:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterAK

I am relieved that British Bangers will be allowed to bend a bit to the right, aswell as left.

The traditional extreme left curling British Banger, or Corbyn, is causing some revolting reactions even amongst moderate consumers with a preference for a slight left bend.

Frankfurters have a lot to answer for, when it comes to bland EU conformity, and a host of Banger Straightening Scientific Researchers and Legislators are facing job losses, unless Scotland can stay in the EU, and wants to have the Haggis designated as an SSSI, a Sausage of Special Scientific Interest, as few outside Scotland consider it a "food" under existing EU Legislation.

This may just be scaremongering propaganda, but nobody knows.

Jul 29, 2016 at 10:06 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Never fear, golfCharlie, the humble banger may soon be joined by the Rod Polse, salami and Drisheen and be free of despotic centralized regulation. Only the Bratwurst (and hundreds more teutonic varieties) seem immune to deregulation. But what this has to do with science eludes me. Wrong thread cG?

Jul 29, 2016 at 11:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterAK

AK 11:35, fears about the future of the British Banger and EU interference ended up being the butt of many jokes as far back as Yes Minister. They seem to have been unfounded, unless Romanian horse meat was finding it's way in.

Some people will be worse off due to BREXIT, and some scientists may lose out on their EU funding. What would those scientists have done if there had never been any EU funding? It is possible that they may have got alternative employment, and carried on researching what they were interested in, during their own time. We don't know.

Rightly or wrongly (and Climate Science IS relevant here) too much funding has been directed at research valued by EU politicians. This has led to Incorrect science funding,, deemed Correct, by politicians. Incorrect politicians can buy incorrect science, and be happy with the results.

Jul 29, 2016 at 3:31 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

GC, one of the unspoken restraints on policy is that no-one must ever lose something they have been accustomed to having. Never getting it is ok. But no-one must ever lose.

As far as the banger, or "emulsified high-fat offal tube" is concerned, the point is not that the story about sausages or bent cucumbers but that the EU thought it appropriate and a proper part of is remit to legislate (or regulate) such minutiae on a continental basis, presumably 'because it can'.

A note on sausages as part of my unofficial and unasked for series 'Oxford housewife in Texas'. We have a butcher down the street who will make to order British Bangers. And they are excellent. He also sells Wagyu fat which works perfectly as beef suet. You can't get packet suet here except vegetable suet by mail order. We also have decent full-fat milk with cream on top. The bacon problem is a little more difficult. You can buy back bacon down in Dallas but it's not much good. We are becoming accustomed to American bacon.

Jul 29, 2016 at 4:06 PM | Unregistered Commenterrhoda

golfCharlie. Thank you. You have to excuse me but I would have been in North America during the formative years of the EU banger joke. I only knew about non curvaceous bananas.

However, in your explanation and exposition you mentioned something that I find very interesting - that scientists might have studied things that would have interested them more. Today science funding is highly targeted and has to be relevant and of benefit to society. Grants are awarded if you can guarantee outcomes and can identify stakeholders who will benefit from.your work. All this before you have done any research. Many desired projects are unable to identify these rewards, and so in order to get funding, the researchers tack on something spurious but designed to fill in those relevance boxes on the grant application form. This is why eventually you have published papers with a totally unnecessary and spurious links to, say climate change. An example of this is a paper on the mating habits of sea wrasse in which it is claimed changing acidity in the oceans will have adverse effects. My suspicion is that the researcher wanted to study fish mating habits (pure filth!) but sold it by linking it to increased CO2 in sea water. Ker-ching!

I think there is a good discussion to be had regarding whether the state should fund science when there may be no obvious benefit to identified stakeholders. I would argue there definitely is, and I'm sure many here (you gC?) would argue against. A discussion with rhoda on astronomy might have developed, but didn't. If anyone here would wish to start such a discussion thread, I would contribute. It might be titled something like "should the state support blue sky studies or focus entirely on 'relevant' research?"

Jul 29, 2016 at 4:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterAK

rhoda, I like bacon. I appreciate why pork was banned by certain religions. Egyptian "beef bacon" is like shoe leather.

There are so many different ways that people like a bacon sandwich, I am surprised that a chain of bacon sandwich shops, with more permutations than a coffee shop has not been opened. If the Americans can't produce decent bacon, this probably explains why.

Jul 29, 2016 at 4:16 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

rhoda. We used to be able to buy in San Francisco, Danish bacon packed in tins. Is this no longer available, or are you determined to hold out for the more expensive salt rubbed bacon. I have found that when you put maple syrup on it, you can't tell the difference.

I do miss not having a "small stack" for breakfast, but never enjoyed "grits".

Jul 29, 2016 at 4:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterAK

It's not so much that they can't do good bacon, they have uncured, all kinds of cure and many smoked varieties using different wood. It's that they invariably use the belly and never the back. I don't know what they do with the back. Just like I don't know why there isn't decent cream or what they do with that part of the milk.

Astronomy? I couldn't take up the anti position because I appreciate the pro too much. I'd like, intellectually, to be able to shine a light on dark matter. But I've seen recently a lot of speculation on what this or that exo-planet is like and I think how can you even speculate from the knowledge level you are at? We don't even have a goo'd handle on our neighbour planets. The exo-planets are in the category of Haldane's (?) 'Stranger than we CAN imagine.

Jul 29, 2016 at 4:50 PM | Unregistered Commenterrhoda

BACON. You are correct, most American bacon is streaky,isn't it? But can't you purchase Canadian bacon - that is usually from the back?

SCIENCE. My mistake I interpreted your musing as arguing that money spent on astronomy was wasted. Watched a programme recently where they claimed they can now determine the atmospheric composition of some exoplanets by the light that passes through the planet atmosphere from its sun. Seems like things have moved considerably on from just identifying exoplanets from slight changes in the star's luminosity.

But what about funding sciences simply because interesting results might accrue, with no real prospect of immediate value added benefits? Studies on wrasse mating behaviours for example?

Jul 29, 2016 at 5:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterAK

MacRhoda's, finest bacon sandwich in the USA?

Jul 29, 2016 at 5:46 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

"But what about funding sciences simply because interesting results might accrue, with no real prospect of immediate value added benefits? Studies on wrasse mating behaviours for example?"

One of the reasons thaf can be see in something like the global warming debate is that a brilliant scientist such as Steve Mcintyre won't see any of that funding because he gets the 'wrong' conclusions. And in fact has to suffer years of abuse from the people living cushy lives that do get the funding.

Jul 30, 2016 at 4:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterRob Burton

Rob Burton. Your critique is faulty. McIntyre probably doesn't get direct state funding because
1) he is Canadian, residing in Canada. He is not therefore eligible for UK or EU funding
2) he doesn't work in an institute or university. My experience is that Canadian funding bodies only fund academcs.
3) he has a poor record of publishing. I believe all his publications are with McKitrick who I suspect does most of the work of getting the papers into print. Funding is, in large part, based on the quality of the researcher which is based on the publication record of the applicant. This is based on "the gold standard" - peer reviewed published papers and various metrics that judge their worth.
4) knowing 2 and 3 above, I doubt that Steve applies.

It would be interesting to learn whether Ross McKitrick identifies Steve as a co-worker on some of his grant applications.

Jul 30, 2016 at 5:20 AM | Unregistered CommenterAK

AK, hopefully someone here can post an appropriate link, but attempts by those who question the wilder claims of climate science to get any kind of research funding, have not been welcomed.

Attempts to get work published in any Journals, have been met by deliberate delays and obstructions.

I don't think that either McIntyre or McKitrick identify themselves as 'Climate Scientists'. This might be a legitimate reason for them being excluded from funding or publishing, but their analysis is around statistics etc, the very disciplines that climate scientists love to misuse, and that climate science peer reviewers cannot find fault with. See Gergis 2016 for details!

Your Point 3 above at 5:20, sums up why there is so much wrong with climate science, and Rob Burton 4:08 is correct. See Gergis 2016 for details!

Jul 30, 2016 at 7:45 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie