Yay, politicians interfering in scientific funding is a thing again..

[Sava]

The real reason

so fascinating

I'm glad you are here to tell us these things.

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

It's neither cheap nor crappy, our health outcomes beat the hell out of yours in most substantive ways.

Possibly actually true, as the US system sucks balls, and not in a fun way. No need to get nationalistic and shirty, Ken - I was really asking.

My elective cholecystectomy and follow up care says not. My stay at the local hospital included a choice of halal/kosher/vegetarian/afro-caribbean and your usual euro fare, with intervals for tea and coffee served by the lovely and lissom Svetlana, with on-site restaurants for those seeking other fare.

I had 10 days stay to have my liver and jaundice monitored while a gallstone which was blocking my common bile duct was removed (sans cutting) and the nurses were all round FAB-U-LOUS, as were the attending physicians, who were zealous in explaining things and answering questions.

My gall bladder removal (6 months later) took only an overnight stay, but I still managed to fit in time to consume smoked salmon, seasonal greens and real strawberry mousse, with proper oatmeal porridge for breakfast (it was wintertime, after all).

My keyhole surgery went fine and I have a small incision scar just below the breastbone with two very faint marks near my groin.


Unfortunately, you are right- politicians of all parties can't resist tinkering with the N.H.S. - the internal market being one example.

Well, I stand corrected, then. Thanks for the feedback.

[Sava]

To anyone who thinks the way grants are handed out is much cherished, I have a bridge to sell you

You and reg are making a habit of arguing against things nobody said.

[kentonio]

Possibly actually true, as the US system sucks balls, and not in a fun way. No need to get nationalistic and shirty, Ken - I was really asking.

Sorry, we're still a bit touchy over the whole 'death panels' ridiculousness. Americans have been lied to for decades over universal healthcare, which usually involves blatently untrue statements about the NHS. It's not nationalism really, it's just to us universal healthcare is a human right, as deeply engrained in the national psyche as any other right.

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

I'm jealous, and no sweat. Just remember that I am not the entire US, and I'm not one of the ones who trolls yew dirty furriners fer bein' furrin - except when I do.

[Sava]

Sorry, we're still a bit touchy over the whole 'death panels' ridiculousness. Americans have been lied to for decades over universal healthcare, which usually involves blatently untrue statements about the NHS. It's not nationalism really, it's just to us universal healthcare is a human right, as deeply engrained in the national psyche as any other right.

Agree.

[Ben Kenobi]

reg must have been studying under Ben, like Luke Skywalker. I wonder who should be his Yoda.

Funny if you recall that Kuci used to be Skywalker, and Reg is Kucibro. Of course they would be my padawans.

[The Mad Monk]

[Hauldren Collider]

You and reg are making a habit of arguing against things nobody said.

OP article uses the phrase "much cherished"

[Sava]

The "much cherished" in the article seems to refer to the peer-review process.


I've never, not even from the nuttiest right wing nutter, heard someone complain about the peer-review process... or hear someone say that it sucks, for any reason.


You have... but neglected to provide reasons.

So please, what do your years of no experience and knowledge in the field tell you?

[Jon Miller]

I wish I was exaggerating--I recently read that literally more than half of all sociology studies are not reproducible. It's a ****ing cesspool.

I remember reading that that was true for all sciences, combined, and was heavily influenced by the poor reproducibility in medicine.

I think (and hope) that Physics is an outlier.

JM

[Jon Miller]

And yes, I am one of those physicists who thinks that the current grant process is a huge waste of time and effort, and is not the best at encouraging good science.

example http://backreaction.blogspot.com/201...-thinking.html

JM

[Lorizael]

The "much cherished" in the article seems to refer to the peer-review process.


I've never, not even from the nuttiest right wing nutter, heard someone complain about the peer-review process... or hear someone say that it sucks, for any reason.


You have... but neglected to provide reasons.

So please, what do your years of no experience and knowledge in the field tell you?

Really?

[Sava]

Really?

Yes. Really.

Also, Captain Strawman, I don't recall anyone saying the process was perfect.

Are we going to play this game now? Oh, we don't have perfection, I guess that means it's a total failure.

If someone has a better idea or improvements to the current system, I'm all for it. All other discussions are pointless.

[Lorizael]

I don't recall me saying anyone said the process was perfect. Wha...? But people have complained about the peer-review process. Plenty of people. The wiki entry for peer-review has quite a substantial and varied criticism section. That doesn't mean the criticisms are valid (although some probably are), just that they exist.