Thursday, 23 August 2012

"Junk Science"?

Rather belatedly, Lobboblogger grumpily announces too the launch of the "Trafficking Culture" webpage but calls it "EU Funded Self-Promotion":
To date, any "research" seems to be the same sort of one sided "junk science" one sees on the SAFE website or links to the prior work of the lead researchers in the same vein.

Well, seeing as they have only just started, maybe this time next year we can compare what they have produced with what the US so-called "Cultural Policy Research Institute" has coughed up since it was founded in 2009 (with Lobboblogger on the Board of Directors). Professor David Gill has had a few words on the quality of the science represented by the single report they have managed to produce so far.

Before Tompa gets too carried away with his criticism of those 'backward Yuropeens', let us remind him that at least three members of the team come to it directly from US centres of higher education.

I wonder what actually would not constitute "one sided "junk science"..." in the eyes of the ever-critical US dealers' lobbyist? Maybe he could give us some examples of some "good science" in the same field contributed by the collecting and dealing lobby, and explain what makes the latter superior? 

Photo: a load of JUNK outside the registered address of the American Cultural Policy "Research Institute"  (215 W. San Francisco St. Santa Fe, NM 87501) [Google Street View]


Cultural Property Observer said...

Well, CPRI is not feeding at the public trough like this entity is. Perhaps some of its funding should instead be sent to CPRI.

Paul Barford said...

But these are European funds, aren't they?

To help Europe see its place and plan its efforts in fighting "trafficking culture".

Surely, rather than EU funds, the American Cultural Policy Research Institute should seek funding from the American government.

Creative Commons License
Ten utwór jest dostępny na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa-Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Unported.