Sentences with phrase «not good scientific practice»

Grafting together two different datasets is usually NOT good scientific practice.

Not exact matches

It is not difficult to see how, once the idea of «baby food» in general became a common part of American infant feeding practices, experts could assume that when it came to fruits and vegetables, the more the better and (lacking substantial scientific research indicating otherwise) the earlier and «more scientifically produced» (industrially manufactured) the better.

Drawing from AAAS» fingerprint report, which includes an extensive review of the scientific literature, evaluations of when such analysis is or is not well grounded in science and a review of practices lacking scientific foundation, Holt urged the Justice Department to not permit examiners to estimate the frequency of any fingerprint observation or use the term «identification» or «source identification» in testimony or reports.

Yet the current postdoctoral arrangements seem to be discouraging talented graduates from becoming academic scientists and may not be fostering best practices in the scientific endeavor.

Nash outlined the information the researchers will seek to gather over the next year: an additional synthesis of existing research; an analysis of the types of information and information sources vying for policymakers» attention; a survey of science communicators» current practices; and interviews with two dozen current and former members of Congress and congressional staff about «which communication practices work and which don't, as well as who policymakers trust to communicate scientific information.»

Despite their «best practice» standards and their scientific validity they are also known to be imperfect and noticeably conservative estimates by «negotiated» agreement and not necessarily the best or latest science or real world Carbon Energy use and projections.

ScienceOpen is very successfully putting Open Access into practice by benefitting from well established OA - services such as PMC, integrating all facettes of it into one platform and create a trusted open scientific environment not only for authors but also for all other stakeholders in the communities.

Even if we accept the dubious proposition that 200,000 studies provide a scientific basis for the authors» 13 nebulous standards of good teacher practice, we can't be sure that the ways in which the authors have chosen to measure these standards necessarily replicate those of the underlying studies.

The problem with the best - practices approach is not entirely that it depends on case studies, but that by avoiding variation in the dependent variable it prevents any scientific identification of causation.

To give you a taste of what is coming in Part 2, the arguments can be summarized as: 1) Education does not lend itself to a single «best» approach, so the Gates effort to use science to discover best practices is unable to yield much productive fruit; 2) As a result, the Gates folks have mostly been falsely invoking science to advance practices and policies they prefer for which they have no scientific support; 3) Attempting to impose particular practices on the nation's education system is generating more political resistance than even the Gates Foundation can overcome, despite their focus on political influence and their devotion of significant resources to that effort; 4) The scale of the political effort required by the Gates strategy of imposing «best» practices is forcing Gates to expand its staffing to levels where it is being paralyzed by its own administrative bloat; and 5) The false invocation of science as a political tool to advance policies and practices not actually supported by scientific evidence is producing intellectual corruption among the staff and researchers associated with Gates, which will undermine their long - term credibility and influence.

In this year - long, place - based, student - centered program, participants not only learn environmental science concepts, but also get a chance to utilize scientific practice to better understand their parks and communities.

Then there's the part 2 of the remit, which doesn't address legal or institutional compliance but asks if CRU was meeting best scientific practice in its ways with data and research findings.

In 2003, Lomborg faced charges of scientific dishonesty that were reviewed by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty; their ruling found his work was «contrary to the standards of good scientific practice» but not characterized by» [bad] intent or gross negligenscientific dishonesty that were reviewed by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty; their ruling found his work was «contrary to the standards of good scientific practice» but not characterized by» [bad] intent or gross negligenScientific Dishonesty; their ruling found his work was «contrary to the standards of good scientific practice» but not characterized by» [bad] intent or gross negligenscientific practice» but not characterized by» [bad] intent or gross negligence.»

Economics has a role to play in determining the «best» way to mitigate and adapt, but it has no role to play in something like «restoring the scientific method» when the scientific method as practiced by climate scientists is not now and has never been in doubt.

They fostered a bunker mentality, saw everyone who raised doubt (even small mistakes of no scientific consequence) as an enemy, and engaged in actions that upon reflection are not the best practices.

«many aren't and expecting all those who engage publicly to have a good understanding of the scientific method, and best scientific practices, is probably unrealistic.»

Would be wonderful if everyone who engaged publicly in these discussions were careful about how they used evidence, but many aren't and expecting all those who engage publicly to have a good understanding of the scientific method, and best scientific practices, is probably unrealistic.

In my opinion they have ignored good scientific practice and therefore do not deserve to be called scientists.

The first of the review's terms of reference is limited to: ``... manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice...» The term «acceptable» is not defined and might better be replaced with «objective».

In a classic Catch - 22, negotiators in a key advisory body that was expected to provide guidance on scientific and technical matters (the so - called «Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice ``, or SBSTA) said they couldn't offer any advice on the best way to measure and evaluate the amount of carbon captured by changes in land use practices until they had a better idea of what the overriding post-Kyoto policies might scientific and technical matters (the so - called «Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice ``, or SBSTA) said they couldn't offer any advice on the best way to measure and evaluate the amount of carbon captured by changes in land use practices until they had a better idea of what the overriding post-Kyoto policies might Scientific and Technological Advice ``, or SBSTA) said they couldn't offer any advice on the best way to measure and evaluate the amount of carbon captured by changes in land use practices until they had a better idea of what the overriding post-Kyoto policies might look like.

While the scale of the challenge is enormous, we submit that the complexity of effective implementation is not: commitments should shift to focus on protecting tigers at spatially well - defined priority sites, supported by proven best practices of law enforcement, wildlife management, and scientific monitoring.

Using the scientific approach whilst excluding practical knowledge in law schools, as Nadia Chiesa points out, does not prepare students for practice: «In his 1935 indictment of legal education, Karl Llewellyn denounces the law schools of his time as factories pulling in immature, unprepared young men and, three years later, churning out young lawyers who are not significantly better prepared to deal with the realities of the legal profession.»