Excerpt
Sen. Rand Paul misrepresented two studies supported by federal grants, while advocating legislation he introduced to change the federal grant funding process.
In both cases, Paul, a 2016 presidential candidate and Republican from Kentucky, confused the means the researchers used to conduct their experiments with the studies' ends, or purpose. Paul also ignored the broader implications of the research.
- Paul characterized one study funded by the National Science Foundation as “bad science” because it looked at “shrimp on a treadmill.” But the scientists developed the treadmill as a means of studying how bacterial infection affects shrimp respiration during activity.
- Paul also left out the broader goal of the shrimp research: To understand how the recent decrease in water oxygen levels where shrimp and other seafood live might affect how they handle infections.
- Paul said it's “absurd” that the National Institutes of Health provided $2 million for a study on whether “kids don't like food that has been sneezed on.” But that money went to a six-year project, composed of multiple studies, on children's reasoning about foods. One study used a video of an actor sneezing on food as a means of understanding if young children can pick up on subtle cues about contamination.
Paul, who worked as an ophthalmologist before entering politics, made his remarks on Oct. 18 during a hearing on federal support for research. A day earlier, Paul introduced the BASIC Research Act, which, if passed, would make a number of changes to the way federal agencies fund basic research.
- Paul also ignored the ultimate aim of the NIH research: To contribute to developing ways to nudge kids to make safer and more healthy food choices by understanding why they make certain choices to begin with.
Paul mentioned his legislation multiple times during the Oct. 18 hearing, arguing it would help take the “bias” out of the grant review process.
Among other things, the bill would require grant review panels to include a “taxpayer advocate.” The bill defines this person as “someone whose main focus is on the value proposed research delivers to the taxpayer.”
Paul's bill would also require panels to include a least one person who is an expert in an unrelated field to the proposed grant project and hasn't been affiliated with any academic or research institution for 10 years.
To be clear, we take no position on whether or not the federal government should have funded these two research projects – that's a matter of opinion. Paul has the right to his opinion that the government shouldn't have funded them. But in advocating his legislation, he mischaracterized the purpose and scope of the two research projects.
Details of bullited items in full article.
No comments:
Post a Comment