Kasz216 said:
highwaystar101 said:
We did have a scientific database, it was called the Internet. Then porn found its way onto it and we have never looked back since lol.
...
Kidding of course, but I agree there should be law that science should be as transparent and as unbiased as possible. One of the major fundamentals of the scientific process is allowing others to critically evaluate your work, and that can't be done unless you provide your results and methods openly. When you hide results it's not science, it's lying.
I don't think that a government databank would make much difference though. I go on many scientific databanks when I am doing research, and it's pretty much all there; you may have to go to several databanks to find one thing, but it's there. The thing is, you're always going to have people who will purposely not publish results for whatever reason, I think a government databank may not make much odds to that.
But you are right, it should be the case where people can not hide their results and climate change is a perfect example of why.
|
I think it would change a lot... be different. I mean look at this stuff... if Phil Jones was forced to provide his data... climate research would look DRASTICALLY different. |
Oh no, I agree. I am saying that they should be forced to provide their research openly too. It should be the law to be transparent with methods and results, etc... Cases like Phil Jones highlight the need for this.
I was just questioning the use of a sole government databank, I don't particularly think it would be much better than the current databanks out there. That's all.
Essay Pro