Is it proper for a "scientist" to be seen with an advocacy group

[DanTex]

48. Wow, you're linking to something by Gary Kleck! Shocking!

You're a teacher, right? That means you know the difference between being able to explain something in your own words, and simply being able to cut and paste a link to an article by His Royal Highness Gary Kleck.

Anyway, does it ever feel a little, umm, strange for you to (a) insult me and (b) whine about my "personal attacks and condescending remarks" in the same post. Really, those posts I had deleted were like a year ago, I think it's time for you to move on. If you're the kind of person who holds year-long grudges over something posted on the internet, maybe the gungeon isn't for you. And also, I know you're not so thin-skinned when it comes to personal attacks against pro-control posters, because just a few days ago you defended a post calling a pro-control woman a "bitter spinster". So what gives?

It would be great to have a civil discussion about the content of the science, the problem is that:
(a) you don't seem to engage with the actual science, all you do is accuse all of the scientists of serial dishonesty when their results don't support your ideology, and
(b) you have a habit of making things up on the spot when the facts don't go your way.

Actually one of your favorite techniques, which combines both prongs of the gejohnston method, is to grossly exaggerate the extent to which gun violence research is funded by Joyce, and thus it's all just propaganda from "big gun control". So, for example, you have claimed that Kellerman's studies were funded by Joyce (false). Multiple times, you have claimed that the Cook-Ludwig DGU study was funded by Joyce (false). And so on. And so, serious question here. How do you want me to respond? Sure, maybe the first time it was an honest mistake by you, but by now you must know better. What conclusion can I draw other than you're not interested in an honest discussion?

Another one of your favorites is to diminish the breadth of academics doing mainstream research on gun violence. The thing is, on the pro-gun side it really is the case that without Kleck, the argument simply falls apart. But it's not the same with the mainstream research. Hemenway is only one of many researchers, and as I've repeated many times, they come from different backgrounds, including sociology, criminology, economics, and public health. Even if Hemenway was a total hack and we ignore every study he's published, there's still a substantial literature out there (Vernick, Teret, Cook, Ludwig, Branas, Zimring, McDowall, Loftin, Kellerman, Wiebe, Wiersema, etc.) But I don't know why I'm repeating this again, because you're just going to ignore it and go on with your false insistence that it's just "a couple of economists and MDs"...


On to the American Cancer Society. Yes, the American Cancer Society is much bigger than Joyce, and Cancer affects a lot more people than gun violence, but those are differences in scale. Qualitatively, they are both share the key elements:
(a) they are privately funded
(b) they support both scientific research as well as political advocacy and advertisements designed for the general audience
(c) right-wing loons and industry propagandists think they are "biased"
And those are the only substantive points you've made against Joyce. The only reason you like ACS but think Joyce is the devil is because of your political ideology. You have zero evidence of any kind of scientific malpractice by Joyce or by any Joyce-funded research. Not all privately funded research is bad, particularly when the private funding is disclosed and has no profit motive. Yes, privately funded research can be problematic -- and so can govt funded research, BTW -- but just the fact that research is privately funded is not enough to dismiss it.

Speaking of political intervention into the scientific process, one fact that (surprise!) doesn't seem to bother you one bit is that a reason that you see private funding of gun violence studies is because the NRA used its political influence in congress to cut off the CDC's funding of gun violence research. This, of course, is by far the biggest distortion of the scientific process that has occurred in all of gun violence research, but you with your insistence on scientific purity don't seem to care at all.

And actually, if you look at other areas where a right-wing lobby has attempted to influence the outcome of science by cutting off government research funds -- tobacco, stem cells, even automobile safety -- I'd say that the gun violence research is in pretty good company.