Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Sunday April 16 2017, @12:45AM   Printer-friendly
from the who-really-needs-independent-experts-anyway? dept.

Common Dreams reports

The Trump administration's anti-science bent has reached the Department of Justice (DOJ), with Attorney General Jeff Sessions saying [April 10] that the department is ending the National Commission on Forensic Science.

The 30-member panel was described by ThinkProgress as "a group of scientists, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and other experts tasked by the Obama administration in 2013 with raising standards for the use of forensic evidence in criminal proceedings".

In its place, a senior forensic advisor will be appointed "to interface with forensic science stakeholders and advise department leadership", Sessions' statement said.

[...] "The reliance of law enforcement on questionable science and the overstatement of the reliability of that science has been a leading cause of the wrongful conviction of innocent people", said National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) president Barry Pollack on Monday. "The reason the National Commission on Forensic Science has been so important is that it includes leading independent scientists, allowing an unbiased expert evaluation of which techniques are scientifically valid and which are not. NACDL is terribly disappointed that even while acknowledging the crucial role played by the National Commission on Forensic Science, the Attorney General has chosen to disband it."

Additional Coverage:

Previous: Forensic Hair Matches: More Junk Science from the FBI


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Walzmyn on Sunday April 16 2017, @12:56AM (31 children)

    by Walzmyn (987) on Sunday April 16 2017, @12:56AM (#494612)

    "Trump Administration's War on Science Reaches DoJ"

    Seriously? Most folks here might agree, hell *I* might agree once I look into it. But that's a bit leading ain't it?
    One would assume the administration is trying to make a balance between budgets, new scientific methods and the level necessary to be accurate in investigations. To just throw out "anti-science" like they're purposefully trying to push us back to the stone age is uncalled for. (even if it's the end result)

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=6, Overrated=2, Disagree=1, Total=9
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 16 2017, @01:00AM (10 children)

    That's to be expected from a gewg_ submission.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @03:20AM (8 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @03:20AM (#494646)

      And yet its still 100% accurate.
      Reality's well known liberal bias giving you sour grapes again?

      • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @03:35AM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @03:35AM (#494652)

        It literally isn't 100% accurate because it is impossible to wage war on a concept.

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by mhajicek on Sunday April 16 2017, @03:43AM (4 children)

          by mhajicek (51) on Sunday April 16 2017, @03:43AM (#494657)

          You mean like drugs or terrorism?

          --
          The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @05:26AM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @05:26AM (#494688)

            Drugs are tangible and terrorism is an activity. Islam or communism are concepts.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @05:53AM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @05:53AM (#494695)

              Small-minded literalism and dictionary pedantry are also concepts, both of which deserve to be made war on.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @07:23AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @07:23AM (#494720)

                "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @09:22AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @09:22AM (#494746)

                  JFC. Will you two get a room already?!

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 16 2017, @10:22AM

        Newp. Fair's fair. He gets his clickbait titles and I get mine.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @04:21PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @04:21PM (#494849)

        >Reality's well known liberal bias giving you sour grapes again?

        According to a totally impartial fact check by a company owned by a newspaper who endorses Democrats for every single election in their 100 year history, this statement is true!

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Sunday April 16 2017, @07:54PM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday April 16 2017, @07:54PM (#494911) Journal

      to be expected from a gewg_ submission.

      And this is to be expected from a TMB reaction to a gewg_ submission. (Cain't wait 'til we have video on SoylentNews, we could actually see the reaction, and Ethanol . . . . OK, no videos on SoylentNews.)

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by http on Sunday April 16 2017, @02:14AM (12 children)

    by http (1920) on Sunday April 16 2017, @02:14AM (#494626)

    No, it's not leading. "Anti-science" is absolutely called for. I lived through Canada's war on science led by the Harper adminstration, and Trump's team is following the exact same playbook in those fields where science matters.

    Stone age? Like shit. Think feudalism.

    --
    I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
    • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @02:39AM (11 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @02:39AM (#494635)

      That's a matter for capitalism, not coercion.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @02:49AM (9 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @02:49AM (#494639)

        Well, capitalism has been doing a piss-fucking-poor job of it.

        All the technology that made america great has its roots in government scientific research.
        But since Reagan there has been a long steady decline in government funded research and as a result we've been coasting on the capital of the previous generations. The rate of ground breaking discoveries has petered out to nil, replaced with minor incremental improvements of existing tech (the stuff with its origins in government research). That's because the kind of long-term research that produces previously unimagined scientific discoveries can't be represented on a balance sheet. You can put a dollar number on goals, but you can't put a dollar number on vision. But its vision that produces discoveries.

        And that's before we even mention how science informs government decision making. If the only science available is whatever corporate thought would be advantageous for themselves then government decision making will only serve corporate goals.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 16 2017, @04:42AM (7 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 16 2017, @04:42AM (#494675) Journal

          All the technology that made america great has its roots in government scientific research.

          So what? Everything has similar roots (or is that cooties?) in any institutions that kick around for longer than a few centuries. So private enterprise and religion are similarly endowed. Even relatively minor things like tin mining or prostitution does. Money gets around and everything is tainted in the above extremely worthless way by how it was spread around in the past.

          Why should we care about the mythical taint of public funding any more than we care about the mythical taint of funding that originally came from prostitution?

          But since Reagan there has been a long steady decline in government funded research

          We can always look at real data than just make up bullshit. For example, US R&D as a percentage of US GDP hasn't changed significantly since 1983. And the US economy has grown significantly since then.

          That's because the kind of long-term research that produces previously unimagined scientific discoveries can't be represented on a balance sheet.

          And that's the kind of straw man that doesn't have a place in grown up debate about science. I think such arguments are used instead to defend the paying of some of our best and brightest, as well as a large bunch of bulbs that don't shine all that bright, to be useless. It's the abandonment not just of accountability and reason, but of the very tools of science itself.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 16 2017, @04:43AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 16 2017, @04:43AM (#494676) Journal

            We can always look at real data

            Sorry, here's the link [aaas.org].

          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @04:51AM (5 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @04:51AM (#494677)

            We can always look at real data than just make up bullshit.

            Well, that's a good idea. So why is your very next sentence nothing more than made up bullshit?

            For example, US R&D as a percentage of US GDP hasn't changed significantly since 1983. And the US economy has grown significantly since then.

            The fact is, R&D has gone up but the rate of growth has been flat to trending downwards. [marginalrevolution.com] And that's because the R&D is focused on incrementalism that is intended to directly benefit the bottom line in the next quarter rather than investigating big ideas with no obvious immediate return.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 16 2017, @05:00AM (4 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 16 2017, @05:00AM (#494681) Journal

              The great irony is that public funding of science and risk mitigation for businesses is probably the primary cause of that declining effectiveness. I'll note that I replied to my post with a link that showed the near constant funding of R&D at the federal level (which let us note is a significant increase in inflation-adjusted dollars). If research isn't as effective, it's not because it's funded less at the federal level.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @05:50AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @05:50AM (#494694)

                The great irony is that public funding of science and risk mitigation for businesses is probably the primary cause of that declining effectiveness.

                Again with the making up of bullshit.

                I'll note that I replied to my post with a link that showed the near constant funding of R&D at the federal level (which let us note is a significant increase in inflation-adjusted dollars).

                And all of the increased spending went to computer science and math. [aaas.org] Nearly all of it to ASCI, the program to replace nuke testing in real life with super-computer simulations in order to maintain our stockpile. It was signed into law in 1995, which you can see in the chart is exactly when spending took off. The only other discipline to receive significant spending increases was "engineering" which no one with any understanding of the topic would confuse with basic research.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 16 2017, @06:37AM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 16 2017, @06:37AM (#494706) Journal

                  Again with the making up of bullshit.

                  I notice a remarkable lack of support for your assertions, whatever they may be, from the link you provided. Perhaps less projection and more looking at the very evidence you provided?

                  And all of the increased spending went to computer science and math.

                  Which is why we see medical R&D way above any of that. It has almost the same color as the math/CS curve. For someone with at least a little knowledge of US research, one would have known that there was something wrong with the interpretation when math/CS (a notoriously low cost field of study) appeared to be the highest curve.

                  Nearly all of it to ASCI, the program to replace nuke testing in real life with super-computer simulations in order to maintain our stockpile.

                  An elaborate explanation for a curve that didn't exist? Classic confirmation bias. You might want to think about what just happened here.

                  No matter how we choose to look at it, public funding in the US and elsewhere continues to grow while the effectiveness of that research continues to decline and private-side investment in basic research continues to dwindle. It's real convenient to claim that the problem is not enough funding, mental failwaves from the naysayers somehow holding us back, or some short term profit motive straw man. But there's no reason to expect this approach of just throwing money around to generate better science even over the course of many centuries. I'd say already that we have ample evidence that it isn't working including the earlier research on the declining effectiveness of research papers in various fields.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @07:57PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @07:57PM (#494912)

                that showed the near constant funding of R&D at the federal level (which let us note is a significant increase in inflation-adjusted dollars)

                How can we trust the "facts" of someone who gets "inflation" backwards?

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 16 2017, @10:41PM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 16 2017, @10:41PM (#494986) Journal

                  How can we trust the "facts" of someone who gets "inflation" backwards?

                  I suppose you could think instead. Let us note here that the graph of federal spending was in dollars per GDP fraction and near constant for the last three decades. GDP for the US grows considerably faster than inflation, hence, from that graph dollar amount adjusted for inflation grows faster than inflation as well.

                  I'll note this is the second time a graph in this thread has been significantly misinterpreted by an AC.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @05:28PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @05:28PM (#494871)

          CRISPR, RNA interference, cancer immunotherapy, gene therapy, induced pluripotent stem cells, HCV cure, massive advances in DNA sequencing ...

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @04:07AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @04:07AM (#494663)

        I don't see how the ownership of the means of production by a moneyed, non-worker class (and not by the workers who do the producing) has anything to do with this.

        It sounds like you are might be talking about "competition" (which is a totally different concept and is not exclusive to a Capitalist-only system).
        There is a Lady Bird Johnson quote that you may have thought applies:

        The clash of ideas is the sound of freedom.

        ...except that this appears to be censorship, not dialog.

        ...then again, you might be thinking of the very warped Libertarian concept that gov't must always show a direct monetary profit from its activities.

        Perhaps you could explain WTF you mean.

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Whoever on Sunday April 16 2017, @02:21AM (6 children)

    by Whoever (4524) on Sunday April 16 2017, @02:21AM (#494631) Journal

    One would assume the administration is trying to make a balance between budgets, new scientific methods and the level necessary to be accurate in investigations.

    One would be wrong. This commission was investigating the use of bad science and outright pseudo-science to obtain convictions.

    Stopping this commission will mean more innocent people will be convicted. This action has nothing to do with budgets and everything to do with promoting convictions at any cost, even if that means convicting the innocent.

    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @04:27AM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @04:27AM (#494671)

      Well, if you accuse someone, they're guilty, right? If they weren't guilty, they wouldn't be accused.

      Except if you accuse Trump of something, with him on tape bragging about it. Then you're fake news.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @04:54AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @04:54AM (#494678)

        Except if you accuse Trump of something, with him on tape bragging about it. Then you're fake news.

        Trump himself has said the facts are true, but its still fake news. [thehill.com]

        • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday April 18 2017, @09:43PM

          by kaszz (4211) on Tuesday April 18 2017, @09:43PM (#496034) Journal

          Kind of like when "news" report on Kardashian. It's true that her skirt is short but it's also irrelevant and a distraction.

      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday April 16 2017, @05:24AM (1 child)

        by kaszz (4211) on Sunday April 16 2017, @05:24AM (#494686) Journal

        China is already leading the future obviously.

        • (Score: 2) by arulatas on Tuesday April 18 2017, @05:10PM

          by arulatas (3600) on Tuesday April 18 2017, @05:10PM (#495915)

          Make America Great In China (MAGIC)

          --
          ----- 10 turns around
    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday April 16 2017, @09:00AM

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Sunday April 16 2017, @09:00AM (#494736) Homepage

      The people who have the most to lose from this are Blacks and Mexicans.

      To them I say, " stop breaking the law, assholes! "